[WS:] Wenn ich "compete" hoere, entisichere ich meinen Browning.
Wojtek
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Sean Andrews <cultstud76 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't get my head around this ruling as a final nail in the coffin
> of Net Neutrality. On the other hand, I was reading this column from
> the National Review (for some reason it's posted on NPR's website).
>
> 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
> >
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>