> 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.
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?