Slashdot Mirror


Six Tech Companies Filing Net Neutrality Lawsuit (thehill.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: Six technology companies, including Kickstarter, Foursquare and Etsy, have launched a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in an effort to preserve net neutrality rules. The companies, which also include Shutterstock, Expa and Automattic, on Monday filed their petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The companies join Vimeo and Mozilla, as well as several state attorneys general who have also filed lawsuits against the FCC in support of the net neutrality rules. Like the other lawsuits, their new case hinges on the Administrative Procedure Act, which they argue prevents the FCC from "arbitrary and capricious" redactions to already existing policy. "Already, over 30,000 Etsy sellers participated in the FCC's public comment process, and tens of thousands more reached out to Congress in support of net neutrality. Now we're bringing their stories and experiences to the courts," said Althea Erickson, head of advocacy and impact at Etsy.

31 comments

  1. No case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haven't proven they were harmed. Court will throw it out. Plus this is DC Circuit. Will take years. Trump will be long gone.

    1. Re: No case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regular ameicans love trump and will reelect him for sure. We also strongly support lifting limts on terms for reelection. Why should such a great president get only two terms?

    2. Re: No case by BranMan · · Score: 1

      I think I just threw up a little in my mouth...

  2. Congress by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can't sue Congress for not passing the laws you like....

    Although many now turn to the Judicial Branch as a new source of defacto legislation.

    --
    5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
    1. Re:Congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't sue Congress for not passing the laws you like....

      That's probably why they're suing the FCC and not congress then.

    2. Re:Congress by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      what part of democratic do you not understand, if enough people disagree with this then they will be compelled to keep net neutrality because enough constituents demanded it so...

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    3. Re:Congress by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      what part of democratic do you not understand,

      What part of FCC makes you think of democracy? Even so, when was the vote for net neutrality that shows that "enough people" want the FCC to do it instead of, say, the FTC or maybe congress?

    4. Re:Congress by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 2

      Actually you are correct.... They hope to show that the FCC does in fact have the ability to mandate NN. The FCC has recently said it does not. It didn't rule against NN per se... just that the FCC cannot make that rule under its charter.

      --
      5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
    5. Re:Congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They hope to show that the FCC does in fact have the ability to mandate NN.

      The supreme court already ruled on that and suggested the FCC do exactly what they did with the Title II protections.

    6. Re:Congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > what part of democratic do you not understand, if enough people disagree with this then

      They should vote in elected representatives in the Legislature to enact their will into law rather than having the courts "reinterpret" laws as a backdoor?

    7. Re: Congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither Congress nor the FTC will do it either. They're all just blowing smoke to obfuscate their connivance with the exploitative telecom industry.

      If the courts neglect their duty, then it will be yet another grievance to hold against the government that has abandoned the people.

    8. Re:Congress by DogDude · · Score: 1

      ... you buy your members of Congress BEFORE they write the laws. But, you can always pay them to change them back, too. From what I've seen, congresspeople are *significantly* cheaper than a lawsuit.

      Congresspeople only cost a few thousand a year: http://www.businessinsider.com...

      A basic, simple, straightforward lawsuit between two individuals or small companies is going to start in the six figures.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    9. Re:Congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snowflake, one is already enough.

  3. Nothing ever goes away by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
    "Like the other lawsuits, their new case hinges on the Administrative Procedure Act, which they argue prevents the FCC from "arbitrary and capricious" redactions to already existing policy."

    In other words, once a policy is implemented it can never be rescinded, even if it should not have been implemented in the first place, because someone, somewhere will always think that rescinding it is "arbitrary and capricious", no matter how much discussion and consideration the agency went through. It does not matter if the creation was arbitrary and capricious, the deletion must not occur.

    Is there a renewed uproar over the removal of CW requirements for amateur radio licenses? That change certainly was arbitrary and capricious.

    1. Re:Nothing ever goes away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's why you go to court and have someone weight the evidence. It's not just stopped arbitrarily because one person alone doesn't agree.

    2. Re:Nothing ever goes away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's why you go to court and have someone weight the evidence. It's not just stopped arbitrarily because one person alone doesn't agree.

      It came on a split decision and it's going on a split decision. You need to read up.

    3. Re:Nothing ever goes away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. "Arbitrary and capricious" is something you'd need to successfully demonstrate in court while opposed by lawyers working to demonstrate how the change was justified. "Someone somewhere things it is arbitrary and capricious" isn't enough to overturn anything.

    4. Re: Nothing ever goes away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did the FCC ever provide evidence for their changes? If not then they're "arbitrary and capricious".

  4. there needs to be some bigger players by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    like Google & Microsoft & IBM getting in on this, the more the better. it needs to gain in size and strength like a snowball effect

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:there needs to be some bigger players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, when billion dollar multinationals are conspiring, you can be very confident that they care conspiring against the working class.

      Obama's "network neutrality" was not at all what you think it was. It was a power grab to give LEO the ability to compel access through CALEA. It didn't do anything at all that you want from network neutrality. It didn't stop throttling certain services, it just required a few million in legal fees to justify it. It certainly didn't do anything to address prices, as it increased the capital costs (think CALEA and mandatory wiretaps) to build new last mile infrastructure. It gave IBM a market for analyzing your data.

      Nothing about this is good about this imperial fiat unless you're the incumbent large corporation.

    2. Re: there needs to be some bigger players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It didn't stop throttling certain services,

      That was never the intent of NN. You can still slow down BitTorrent, video, and give precedence to VoIP or medical data, etc. NN prevented you from slowing down everyone's torrents except of those from website A. Or all hospitals except the one that paid extra.

      it just required a few million in legal fees to justify it. It certainly didn't do anything to address prices, as it increased the capital costs (think CALEA and mandatory wiretaps) to build new last mile infrastructure. It gave IBM a market for analyzing your data.

      Completely unrelated to NN. Big brother was happening either way. No excuses nor justification was ever provided for them. The govt knows not enough ppl care to pay attention.

  5. they are not our friends by houghi · · Score: 2

    Just because they are the enemies of our enemies does not make them our friends. The fact that they have the same goals this time is nice, but irrelevant in the long term.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:they are not our friends by sconeu · · Score: 1

      This is always true.

      The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. Nothing more, nothing less. It may make us temporary allies, but not necessarily friends.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:they are not our friends by deathguppie · · Score: 1

      The price of guava juice in Brazil is what you say?

      I can't get what you are saying, are you defending the right of ISP's to censor content?

      I don't care about what companies may or may not do in the past or in the future, I care about what is happening now. If I can I'll try to protect my rights for future use but this thread is about my rights online and bringing up that the companies now trying to protect my right online may have future intent is irrelevant and seems like an attempt to obfuscate the subject we are concerned with now.

      --
      once more into the breach
  6. Tech companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    None of the 6 companies listed are tech companies. So, who are the tech companies that are suing?

    The terms "tech, innovative, disrupt" don't mean what they originally meant. They are nothing but meaningless buzzwords now.

    1. Re: Tech companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Etsy is more tech then slashdot these days

    2. Re: Tech companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have bought electronic test equipment on etsy. High end vintage stuff made by General Radio.

  7. that clause doesn't apply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am pretty sure that clause of APA doesn't even apply to this situation. I am pretty that clause only applies to agency actions that are judicial and trial-like, like when an agency is deciding if you violated a regulation and want your punishment should be. I don't think it applies to agency actions that are legislative, like when they are setting the regulations. When they are doing that, they are acting under the powers delegated to them by Congress. And the court can't overturn those unless they are unconstitutional.

    1. Re:that clause doesn't apply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am pretty sure that clause of APA doesn't even apply to this situation. I am pretty that clause only applies to agency actions that are judicial and trial-like... I don't think it applies to agency actions that are legislative...

      'The APA requires that to set aside agency action that are not subject to formal trial-like procedures, the court must conclude that the regulation is "arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law."[11] However, Congress may further limit the scope of judicial review of agency actions by including such language in the organic statute.'

      'To set aside formal rulemaking or formal adjudication whose procedures are trial-like,[12] a different standard of review allows courts to question agency actions more strongly. For such more formal actions, agency decisions must be supported by "substantial evidence"[13] after the court reads the "whole record,"[13] which can be thousands of pages long.'

      'Arbitrary and capricious review allows agency decisions to stand as long as an agency can give a reasonable explanation for its decision based on the information that it had at the time. ...because it is similar to the legislative process reserved for Congress. The courts' main role is then to ensure that agency rules conform to the Constitution and the agency's statutory powers.'

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(United_States)

  8. nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Makes easy to know the companies to boycott over their antifree market ideologies. No doubt all Democrat party support donations too, so double win for honest Americans like me.

    1. Re:nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, *you're* the honest one.