http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125709802
After speaking at length about how government interference with the internet would remove the pressure or ability of telecommunications companies like Comcast to compete (and for competition to, in the NR's eyes, inevitably improve service to consumers) they discuss the ruling as a win for these companies because it limits the mandate of the FCC.
Then they make this statement:
"This fight isn't over. A statement from the FCC noted that the court did not "close the door to other methods" for imposing its preferred regulations. Net-neutrality backers, of whom FCC chairman Julius Genachowski is one, have suggested that the FCC should reclassify the Internet as a "telecommunications service" rather than an "information service" in order to gain the regulatory authority it currently lacks. This would effectively mean applying to broadband providers the rules designed for landline telephone companies in the 1930s. We know Obama wants to emulate FDR, but this is getting ridiculous."
The stark irony of this statement seems completely lost on these people: they begin by talking about how the Internet should be ably managed by telecommunications companies and the market for the services they provide over the internet. But then they criticize the government for wanting to treat the internet as a telecommunications service. Only the truly delusional can be so easily swayed by their own twisted logic.
In any case, like the earlier changes to ownership rules, I think this could still be something the FCC could be forced to change with some sort of popular pressure. I know Doug is skeptical of orgs like Free Press, but it seems like in this case they are on the right side of the issue.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/
s
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 07:45, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8608662.stm
>
>
> The significance of this ruling goes beyond the internet - it reveals the
> fundamentally reactionary nature of the US legal system and the judiciary
> which has the power to overrule government agencies if they decide to
> encroach on the turf of big business. In that light, all the leftie
> kvetching about Obama's "betrayal" is a bunch of crock - based in a
> delusional view of the US polity and the supine position of government in
> it. The US is a plutocracy, not a monarchy. The POTUS and the USG are
> strong only if they march to the drum beat of business interest, but they
> are emasculated as soon as they attempt to march to a different beat.
>
> In that light, any reform is doomed from the start, because if it "moves too
> far to the left" (i.e. encroaches of the interests of the business owners of
> this country) it will be surely overruled by the reactionary judiciary.
> Specifically, the 'Obamacare" was probably stretching the limits of how far
> the USG is allowed to go before being reigned back by the reactionary court
> system. Knowing that limits was a sign of political genius rather than a
> "betrayal" of any kind.
>
> Wojtek
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>