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.
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.]
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.
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.
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.
No. There's regulation and there's regulation. Net neutrality is the concept that network providers should not privilege some kinds of content over others - i.e. that all packets are created equal.
I don't think net neutrality legislation means what you think it means.
government regulation with regards to ISP's is broken, thus stifling the competition that would ensure far more robust net neutrality than any legislated version.
you don't stop monopolies from abusing their powers by legislating that they play fair. you take away the governmental protections that allow them to have a monopoly and let the market consume them when they refuse to change their shitty business practices.
> you take away the governmental protections that allow them to have a monopoly and let the market consume them when they refuse to change their shitty business practices.
no examples exist. the wikipedia example is terrible. epidemics were caused by something that had never existed up until that point? (water network) and because profit margins were too low? so you're going to tell me that a lack of running water caused widespread DEATH AND PESTILENCE and people still were going "nah, I think I'll wait for those water bills to drop some more"?
My point was that in certain markets unregulated competition will naturally lead to a monopoly. The technical term for this in microeconomics is "natural monopoly", and the explanation at the beginning of the Wikipedia article is actually pretty good.
Without regulation monopolists can prevent the market entry of competitors and can extract excessive profits from consumers, to the detriment of society as a whole.
After most elected Republicans and Democrats voted for EESA in 2008 (against the wishes of their constituents by 100:1 or more) and after Bush's PATRIOT Act and Obama's decision to renew it, it should be apparent that the major political parties are functionally identical and not interested in their voters.
Dividing people along party lines distracts from the issues while changing nothing. The issue here is net neutrality.
This is like saying just because China and the US act much in the same way (for example, they are the leaders in environment pollution) there is no distinction between people who believe in a communist regime vs. in a democratic government. Of course a distinction between Republicans and Democrats is useful. For example it is a good prediction to say if you have a PhD, you are probably not a Republican.
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.
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.''
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?
