

Plain and simple: Net neutrality is hypocrisy - mudil
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703395204576023452250748540.html
Don't believe politicians? Take it from techies:<p>http://scripting.com/stories/2010/12/19/netNeutralityIsHypocrisy.html
======
guelo
I know this is ad hominem, but Robert McDowell is one of many corporate
lobbyists appointed by Bush to undermine a federal agency.

~~~
agentultra
It's not ad hominem; it's good to know sources, especially with an opinion
piece like this.

~~~
yummyfajitas
It certainly is ad hominem.

 _\- attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument._
<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad+hominem>

It's also hard to see how it is relevant.

~~~
blueben
It's not attacking his character, but rather his bias. And the funding that
supports his opinion is entirely relevant; He is paid to craft arguments in
opposition to Network Neutrality.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Accusing him of being biased is attacking his character.

As for his funding source, which of his arguments does that invalidate? Which
of his facts is false, as a result of him being funded by Verizon (or
whoever)?

(By the way, I don't even agree with him. Just pointing out that ad hominem is
a logical fallacy, except under fairly limited circumstances - specifically
when facts are presented that the reader cannot verify.)

[Edit: just thought of another circumstance where it isn't a logical fallacy.
"You are wrong because of XXX. Also you are stupid." In this case, the
argument is unchanged regardless of the attack on character.]

~~~
agentultra
In the context of a proper debate, bias is expected since the opposing view
will be supported by your opponent.

In the context of an essay, there is no opponent. The author is responsible
for drawing conclusions from evidence which they use to support their thesis.

The corollary is an opinion piece. The author is free to derive evidence which
supports their pre-determined conclusion. Such articles are able to be
complete fabrications and misleading while lime-lighting in our media as
legitimate articles to report. If the reader is not aware of the author's bias
they may be mislead in their own conclusions.

Therefore it is not ad hominem to draw into question the bias of an author of
an article. Doing so may invalidate any argument they have made which relies
on the intended omission of evidence which may counter their argument.
Sometimes it is the only way by which a reader can distinguish an opinion
piece from a proper essay when the distinction isn't made clear by the
publisher of the article.

------
lazylland
I don't get his arguments ... it just seemed like one big REGULATION IS EVIL
rant/FUD.

Did I miss anything ?

~~~
Lendal
Let's put it a way a programmer would understand. Regulation is like
generalization. Not enough of it is bad. Too much of it is also bad.

What is the problem we're having that's in need of fixing? If you can't answer
that question with concrete examples of problems we are having right now, that
would be fixed by adding expensive lawyers and regulators, then it is an
imaginary problem. Regulation is not necessary. Regulation costs money. Do we
have an overabundance of money right now to fix imagined problems that nobody
can explain? I sure don't.

~~~
frobozz
When faced with a prompt: "Input a number from 1 to 5", a tester asks "What if
I put in 6?". One possible answer might be: "The program crashes."

In this situation, there is no problem with the program _right now_ , only at
some hypothetical point in the future when someone actually enters an invalid
value.

------
RockyMcNuts
The thing is, in most locations broadband is a monopoly.

Show me the competition, innovation, and capital investment in the last mile,
and I'll consider your argument that regulation will stifle innovation,
competition, and capital investment.

Netflix is a good example... show me that even with all your advantages and
investment in view on demand, you were able to deliver a customer experience
as good as Netflix, and I'll consider your argument that you should help
determine what services to offer and how to charge for them.

------
bumbledraven
I like what Stephen Kinsella wrote in response to this article in "Against Net
Neutrality" <http://networkedblogs.com/c3MxZ>):

``It is true that some corporations probably have extra-market power to
control aspects of the Internet, _as the result of_ state interventions such
as IP, FCC licensing, antitrust law, big business favoritism, and so on. But
the solution is not to grant the state even more power to regulate private
companies... [N]et neutrality is an attempt by the state to [seize] more power
to control private property rights as an ostensible response to various
"market failures" that are really themselves caused by state intervention.''

------
regularfry
Let me get this straight: nothing is broken right now, and therefore
legislation to stop it from being broken in the future is... bad? Is that
seriously what he's suggesting?

~~~
mudil
That's right. Ronald Reagan liked to describe the sequence of actions that
government typically takes toward private business:

"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving,
subsidize it."

