The strict constructionist would say that the text of the Constitution did not protect the founders' iPhones, therefore it doesn't protect your iPhone. I'm not sure precisely what "effects" meant at the time of the ratification, but I'm pretty sure it didn't refer to handheld electronic devices. The "living constitution" folks would say that today's iPhone is the modern equivalent of papers and effects, and therefore should be protected. The idea of the living constitution is to adapt the broad principles of the constitution to modern circumstances. Seems like we could use more of that in this case.

While I understand many commenters are sad to see the PSTN go, I hope all acknowledge that it is simply not feasible to keep it running. Even today we're shelling out somewhere in the neighborhood of $12-15 billion a year in subsidies through the universal service and intercarrier compensation systems to rural telcos to keep the PSTN running. As PSTN subscribership continues to drop steadily (and it will), the required subsidy levels will only go up. Sure the PSTN had its merits, but ultimately it could not compete with IP networks in terms of efficiency and capabilities, and hence both service providers and customers are abandoning it in droves. Unless we are all happy to shell out tens of billions of dollars a year in subsidies, the PSTN is going to die and die quickly.

As an actual telecom attorney, I'd just like to clarify that this ruling applies very narrowly to the use of entrance facilities (wires running into telco offices) for the purpose of interconnection. The dispute centered on an order from the FCC that excluded these facilities from regulation under one part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that requires unbundled access to network elements that are necessary for competing service providers and would impair their ability to provide service if they were denied access. A separate section of the Act requires telcos to provide cost-based access to network facilities for the purpose of interconnection. AT&T claimed that the order meant that they did not have to provide access to entrance facilities under either statutory provision. A competing provider, took them to court over it, the FCC filed a brief stating that AT&T was required to provide the facilities for the purpose of interconnection, and the Supreme Court endorsed the FCC view. That's it. This opinion does not expand the rights of competitors to unbundled access to incumbent networks in any general sense.

This is nonsense. Manufactured goods are not radically cheaper in China than in the US. Labor is. Think about what you're saying for a second. Manufactured goods are highly transportable. If the exact same goods sold in China for a fraction of the price they sell for in the US, how long would it take for large importers to make a fortune arbitraging that price difference until the prices balance out? In fact, Walmart has already done this. The fact that China keeps its currency devalued against the dollar only exacerbates the matter. Labor is cheap in China. Goods and services that are labor-centric and based on local market pricing are cheap (food, housing generally) compared to a Western nation. But prices for manufactured goods are pretty similar to what they'd be anywhere else. Labor is cheap in China, EVEN FOR CHINESE PEOPLE. In that sense, a Chinese company will simply throw more manpower at something that in the US we would instead deploy more machinery and technology (e.g., construction, agriculture). And people in China do repair everything because taking it to a repairman is cheaper than buying a new one.

If you can only sell 50 copies a week a $1, but can move 25k copies per week at $0, you need to find a way to make money off of $0. Find a sponsor, insert some advertising. That's a 50,000% difference in market reach between $1 and $0. Even if you can only figure out how to make $0.01 per customer, you've increased your revenue by 500%. This is the trap that the traditional media companies fall into--thinking they need so many units of product at the same prices they've always charged. It's a different platform, you need a different model.

So, Greenspan who ran the government monopoly of money supply, was a libertarian? I had no idea.

Actually, yes. Greenspan is well-known to have been a lifelong libertarian. The man was a close personal friend of Ayn Rand, for gods sake. Wikipedia:

During the 1950s, Greenspan was one of the members of Ayn Rand's inner circle, the Ayn Rand Collective, who read Atlas Shrugged while it was being written. Rand nicknamed Greenspan "the undertaker" because of his penchant for dark clothing and reserved demeanor. Although Greenspan continues to advocate laissez-faire capitalism, some Objectivists find his support for a gold standard somewhat incongruous or dubious, given the Federal Reserve's role in America's fiat money system and endogenous inflation. ... However, when questioned in relation to this, he has said that in a democratic society individuals have to make compromises with each other over conflicting ideas of how money should be handled. He said he himself had to make such compromises, because he actually believes that "we did extremely well" without a central bank and with a gold standard.

This is why it was shocking to many when Greenspan made the concession before Congress last week that his ideological model of how the markets worked was flawed.