NYT: Defining Internet Openness Downward

The lead of the New York Times story today (12/2/10) on the FCC’s new internet plan:

The plan from the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission to ensure an open and neutral Internet drew mixed reviews on Wednesday from consumer advocates and Internet service providers, presenting the agency with an uncertain way forward as it considers new broadband regulation.

Of course, there are many who think the plan most assuredly does not “ensure an open and neutral Internet”–leading to some decidedly unmixed reviews. See the response from Free Press president Josh Silver, for instance: “FCC Chairman Announces Fake Net Neutrality Proposal.”

In an unrelated bonus, the Times offers a novel explanation for relying on an anonymous source:

Now, Mr. Genachowski thinks he has found a way around the court’s ruling, according to a senior FCC official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the chairman’s proposal was subject to change.

Well, if that’s the standard for granting anonymity–which would seem to violate Times policy–then sources can only be named when discussing events and policies that will never change. Like the Times‘ use of anonymity to shield the powerful from accountability, apparently.