You say my article “succumbs to the regulation/de-regulation doublespeak pressed by the Internet regulators.” You later say “This is not at all a ruling in favor of deregulation. To the contrary, it is a ruling authorizing private regulation of the Internet.”

I think perhaps you simply don’t understand what the term “deregulation” means. Regulation, as a term of art, is something only the government does. If the government imposes rules on X and later eliminates some or all of those rules, that’s deregulation. Your term “private regulation” is an oxymoron.

Here, the government (acting through the FCC) had imposed regulations on telephone companies mandating that they provide access to their competitors. That rule was later eliminated. That’s deregulation.

In the court’s opinion, one of the critical sections begins: “Petitioners argue that the FCC’s blanket deregulation of wireline broadband Internet access service violates …”

Ergo, I was not succumbing to doublespeak, as you say, but simply describing what the court had done in the same terms the court itself had used.