WTF??? I may not be a fancy big-city lawyer, but I would think that even someone as dense as a Supreme Court Justice (and obtuseness seems to be a job requirement these days), let alone a clearer-thinking lower court judge, should be able to see the clear applicability of common carrier statute and precedent here. Unless and until the ISPs actually create, procure and provide exclusive content and only their own content (goods) via their delivery means, they are bound by common carrier. That goes back to what, Domesday?
Don't the FCC's own regulations say that ISPs aren't common carriers? Don't recent acts of Congress (e.g. the Telecommunications Act) overrule ancient common law precedents?
Only if the adjudicators agree with statute and regulation -- and there is clear parallel with every other application of common carrier law, so what the courts should be finding is that the ISPs are de facto and de jure common carriers, despite legislation to the contrary. To put it technically, they are the same in essence, and the rule of law says that when two things are the same in essence, they cannot be treated differently.
Comments
WTF??? I may not be a fancy big-city lawyer, but I would think that even someone as dense as a Supreme Court Justice (and obtuseness seems to be a job requirement these days), let alone a clearer-thinking lower court judge, should be able to see the clear applicability of common carrier statute and precedent here. Unless and until the ISPs actually create, procure and provide exclusive content and only their own content (goods) via their delivery means, they are bound by common carrier. That goes back to what, Domesday?
Don't the FCC's own regulations say that ISPs aren't common carriers? Don't recent acts of Congress (e.g. the Telecommunications Act) overrule ancient common law precedents?
Only if the adjudicators agree with statute and regulation -- and there is clear parallel with every other application of common carrier law, so what the courts should be finding is that the ISPs are de facto and de jure common carriers, despite legislation to the contrary. To put it technically, they are the same in essence, and the rule of law says that when two things are the same in essence, they cannot be treated differently.