DISQUS

Tim Lee · 2 years ago

Very well put Adam.

I think people tend not to appreciate how ingenious lawyers and lobbyists are at twisting the law to fit their own ends. The fact that the law is written in what seems to us mere mortals like plain English has never been an impediment to re-interpreting the law in ways the benefit the well-connected.

It's not limited to telecom, either. In my day job, I'm writing a paper on eminent domain abuse in Missouri. People are always shocked the first time they learn that the term "blight" as it is used in modern property law is used in a way that has little or no relationship to the plain English meaning of the term. When the Supreme Court ratified the taking of blighted property 50 years ago, they thought they were merely permitting cities to clear slums. But nowadays, "blight" is the all-purpose term that cities use to knock down entire neighborhoods and replace them with Wal-Marts.

Writing law that won't be twisted to serve the agendas of special interests is extremely difficult. Very few of the advocates of neutrality regulations appear to appreciate this, and even fewer have made a serious effort to craft regulation that will resist such manipulation. I think that if they win the battle, they'll be in for an unwelcome surprise when they see the practical consequences of their victory.