U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

[Efilroft Sul]

52. Another doozy from the partial "dissent"

Nevertheless, the Commission justifies its aggressive, prophylactic regulation by asserting that the negative consequences of regulation (preserving the status quo) are likely to be minor, while the consequences of allowing the broadband market to evolve without regulation could be drastic and permanent. 25 F.C.C.R. at 17909 ¶ 12. I think this is quite wrong, but in any event, the agency’s judgment about the propriety of leaping before looking cannot displace the judgment of Congress which, in enacting § 706, did not so broadly empower the Commission. Rather, Congress required the agency to identify an actual barrier to infrastructure investment or a threat to competition, and the agency must have evidence that the barrier or threat exists.

***

Deregulation good! Net Neutrality bad! And yet, the "dissent" says the FCC should more identify threats to competition instead of worrying about how telecoms might use their technical and economic prowess to their advantage. What competition, judge?