> It's true the outcome sucks in this case, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do from a balance of power perspective.
HN, the only place on the internet for thoughtful/rational political discourse.
This is the only place I've seen having this conversation. That actually questioned the utility of the agencies to follow out the intended goal and whether this is the best policy to do thee job. It's sad it's not even being tapped on by the newspapers, even as an aside to their doomsday headlines they love to stir up.
As Thomas Sowell said: "Economics is not about hopes and good intentions, it's about cause and effect". The same applies to regulatory policy.
> It had the backing of legislation to do whatever it wanted, leading to instability of regulation.
This makes no sense. It's not true, for one thing--the FCC cannot "do whatever it wants." And independent rulemaking is the entire point of creating an independent federal regulatory agency in the first place.
Calling it a "regulatory overstep" is fine as a means of expressing an opinion about this rule, but the rule was legally promulgated. Again: that's why it took an act of Congress to reverse. Illegal rules get reversed in court.
This law was written to prevent an overstep of a non legislative body's ability to legislate.
It's true the outcome sucks in this case, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do from a balance of power perspective.