Comments on: A Bad Week for Neut Regs http://techliberation.com/2006/06/13/a-bad-week-for-neut-regs/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Stephan Sokolow http://techliberation.com/2006/06/13/a-bad-week-for-neut-regs/comment-page-1/#comment-53012 Stephan Sokolow Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:41:14 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/06/13/a-bad-week-for-neut-regs/#comment-53012 <p>To be honest, if it weren't unfair to Americans (I'm Canadian), I'd just say "Let the U.S. have neutrality regs and we'll just see what works best".</p> To be honest, if it weren’t unfair to Americans (I’m Canadian), I’d just say “Let the U.S. have neutrality regs and we’ll just see what works best”.

]]> By: Stephan Sokolow http://techliberation.com/2006/06/13/a-bad-week-for-neut-regs/comment-page-1/#comment-33775 Stephan Sokolow Wed, 21 Jun 2006 19:41:14 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/06/13/a-bad-week-for-neut-regs/#comment-33775 <p>To be honest, if it weren't unfair to Americans (I'm Canadian), I'd just say "Let the U.S. have neutrality regs and we'll just see what works best".</p> To be honest, if it weren’t unfair to Americans (I’m Canadian), I’d just say “Let the U.S. have neutrality regs and we’ll just see what works best”.

]]> By: James Gattuso http://techliberation.com/2006/06/13/a-bad-week-for-neut-regs/comment-page-1/#comment-53011 James Gattuso Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:58:03 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/06/13/a-bad-week-for-neut-regs/#comment-53011 <p>Yes, I think they should be worried about the direction of the debate. The rhetoric is increasingly aimed at "big companies" in terms broad enough to include goole and others. (And that rhetoric is coming from <a href="http://moveon.org">moveon.org</a> and other activist groups, not from anything the telcos have done). If Google's people aren't worried about that, they aren't doing their job.<br><br>In any case, you wrote above of my "support" for the amendment. My statement indicates no such thing.</p> Yes, I think they should be worried about the direction of the debate. The rhetoric is increasingly aimed at “big companies” in terms broad enough to include goole and others. (And that rhetoric is coming from moveon.org and other activist groups, not from anything the telcos have done). If Google’s people aren’t worried about that, they aren’t doing their job.

In any case, you wrote above of my “support” for the amendment. My statement indicates no such thing.

]]> By: James Gattuso http://techliberation.com/2006/06/13/a-bad-week-for-neut-regs/comment-page-1/#comment-33774 James Gattuso Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:58:03 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/06/13/a-bad-week-for-neut-regs/#comment-33774 <p>Yes, I think they should be worried about the direction of the debate. The rhetoric is increasingly aimed at "big companies" in terms broad enough to include goole and others. (And that rhetoric is coming from moveon.org and other activist groups, not from anything the telcos have done). If Google's people aren't worried about that, they aren't doing their job.</p> <p>In any case, you wrote above of my "support" for the amendment. My statement indicates no such thing.</p> Yes, I think they should be worried about the direction of the debate. The rhetoric is increasingly aimed at “big companies” in terms broad enough to include goole and others. (And that rhetoric is coming from moveon.org and other activist groups, not from anything the telcos have done). If Google’s people aren’t worried about that, they aren’t doing their job.

In any case, you wrote above of my “support” for the amendment. My statement indicates no such thing.

]]> By: Mike Masnick http://techliberation.com/2006/06/13/a-bad-week-for-neut-regs/comment-page-1/#comment-53010 Mike Masnick Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:33:19 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/06/13/a-bad-week-for-neut-regs/#comment-53010 <p>On the amendment, you're quoted in the <a href="http://News.com">News.com</a> article about how Google should be "worried about the direction this debate is taking" as if that amendment were something they should seriously be worried about, rather than a childish joke played by the telcos...<br><br>Sorry if I read that to mean you supported the prank, but it certainly came off that way. I know you don't <em>really</em> support the regulations -- NO ONE DOES. But, you do seem to support the sentiment that the net neutrality debate is no different than if someone wanted to regulate Google's deals.<br><br>Finally, I'm not sure why a ridiculous Post editorial should impact the regulation one way or the other.</p> On the amendment, you’re quoted in the News.com article about how Google should be “worried about the direction this debate is taking” as if that amendment were something they should seriously be worried about, rather than a childish joke played by the telcos…

Sorry if I read that to mean you supported the prank, but it certainly came off that way. I know you don’t really support the regulations — NO ONE DOES. But, you do seem to support the sentiment that the net neutrality debate is no different than if someone wanted to regulate Google’s deals.

Finally, I’m not sure why a ridiculous Post editorial should impact the regulation one way or the other.

]]> By: Mike Masnick http://techliberation.com/2006/06/13/a-bad-week-for-neut-regs/comment-page-1/#comment-33773 Mike Masnick Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:33:19 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/06/13/a-bad-week-for-neut-regs/#comment-33773 <p>On the amendment, you're quoted in the News.com article about how Google should be "worried about the direction this debate is taking" as if that amendment were something they should seriously be worried about, rather than a childish joke played by the telcos...</p> <p>Sorry if I read that to mean you supported the prank, but it certainly came off that way. I know you don't <em>really</em> support the regulations -- NO ONE DOES. But, you do seem to support the sentiment that the net neutrality debate is no different than if someone wanted to regulate Google's deals.</p> <p>Finally, I'm not sure why a ridiculous Post editorial should impact the regulation one way or the other.</p> On the amendment, you’re quoted in the News.com article about how Google should be “worried about the direction this debate is taking” as if that amendment were something they should seriously be worried about, rather than a childish joke played by the telcos…

Sorry if I read that to mean you supported the prank, but it certainly came off that way. I know you don’t really support the regulations — NO ONE DOES. But, you do seem to support the sentiment that the net neutrality debate is no different than if someone wanted to regulate Google’s deals.

Finally, I’m not sure why a ridiculous Post editorial should impact the regulation one way or the other.

]]> By: James Gattuso http://techliberation.com/2006/06/13/a-bad-week-for-neut-regs/comment-page-1/#comment-53009 James Gattuso Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:42:46 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/06/13/a-bad-week-for-neut-regs/#comment-53009 <ol> <li>My point wasn't to critique the Post editorial -- Tim did that in the prior post. My point in citing Chester was that he (among others) tend to lead with ad hominem arguments, rather than the substance.<br><br>2. I never took a position on the amendment to extend neutrality regs to Google. If I had, I'd be against it, as I am against applying it to others.<br><br>3. I'm not "patting myself on the back" over anything. I had nothing to do with the Post editorial. However, I do believe that the fact that if papers like the Post oppose regulation, that is bad news for regulation supporters.</li> </ol>
  • My point wasn’t to critique the Post editorial — Tim did that in the prior post. My point in citing Chester was that he (among others) tend to lead with ad hominem arguments, rather than the substance.

    2. I never took a position on the amendment to extend neutrality regs to Google. If I had, I’d be against it, as I am against applying it to others.

    3. I’m not “patting myself on the back” over anything. I had nothing to do with the Post editorial. However, I do believe that the fact that if papers like the Post oppose regulation, that is bad news for regulation supporters.
    • ]]>         By: Mike Masnick http://techliberation.com/2006/06/13/a-bad-week-for-neut-regs/comment-page-1/#comment-53008 Mike Masnick Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:08:46 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/06/13/a-bad-week-for-neut-regs/#comment-53008 <p>James,<br><br>It's pretty weak of you to only point out the bad responses. I think I wrote a pretty thorough response to why the Post editorial was bogus, but you cherry pick the weak responses because they support your stance.<br><br>Setting up straw men doesn't help your argument.<br><br>I'm not necessarily in favor of any of the proposed regulations, but I think you've been making a number of questionable statements (and your "support" for that idiotic amendment putting "neutrality" on companies like Google was really a low point).<br><br>So, no, I'm not "pro-regulation" as you like to say, but I think patting yourself on the back because a ridiculous Post editorial supports your position is pretty sad.</p> James,

    It’s pretty weak of you to only point out the bad responses. I think I wrote a pretty thorough response to why the Post editorial was bogus, but you cherry pick the weak responses because they support your stance.

    Setting up straw men doesn’t help your argument.

    I’m not necessarily in favor of any of the proposed regulations, but I think you’ve been making a number of questionable statements (and your “support” for that idiotic amendment putting “neutrality” on companies like Google was really a low point).

    So, no, I’m not “pro-regulation” as you like to say, but I think patting yourself on the back because a ridiculous Post editorial supports your position is pretty sad.

    ]]>         By: James Gattuso http://techliberation.com/2006/06/13/a-bad-week-for-neut-regs/comment-page-1/#comment-33772 James Gattuso Wed, 14 Jun 2006 01:42:46 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/06/13/a-bad-week-for-neut-regs/#comment-33772 <ol> <li><p>My point wasn't to critique the Post editorial -- Tim did that in the prior post. My point in citing Chester was that he (among others) tend to lead with ad hominem arguments, rather than the substance.</p></li> <li><p>I never took a position on the amendment to extend neutrality regs to Google. If I had, I'd be against it, as I am against applying it to others.</p></li> <li><p>I'm not "patting myself on the back" over anything. I had nothing to do with the Post editorial. However, I do believe that the fact that if papers like the Post oppose regulation, that is bad news for regulation supporters.</p></li> </ol>

  • My point wasn’t to critique the Post editorial — Tim did that in the prior post. My point in citing Chester was that he (among others) tend to lead with ad hominem arguments, rather than the substance.

  • I never took a position on the amendment to extend neutrality regs to Google. If I had, I’d be against it, as I am against applying it to others.

  • I’m not “patting myself on the back” over anything. I had nothing to do with the Post editorial. However, I do believe that the fact that if papers like the Post oppose regulation, that is bad news for regulation supporters.

    • ]]>         By: Mike Masnick http://techliberation.com/2006/06/13/a-bad-week-for-neut-regs/comment-page-1/#comment-33771 Mike Masnick Wed, 14 Jun 2006 01:08:46 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/06/13/a-bad-week-for-neut-regs/#comment-33771 <p>James,</p> <p>It's pretty weak of you to only point out the bad responses. I think I wrote a pretty thorough response to why the Post editorial was bogus, but you cherry pick the weak responses because they support your stance.</p> <p>Setting up straw men doesn't help your argument.</p> <p>I'm not necessarily in favor of any of the proposed regulations, but I think you've been making a number of questionable statements (and your "support" for that idiotic amendment putting "neutrality" on companies like Google was really a low point).</p> <p>So, no, I'm not "pro-regulation" as you like to say, but I think patting yourself on the back because a ridiculous Post editorial supports your position is pretty sad.</p> James,

    It’s pretty weak of you to only point out the bad responses. I think I wrote a pretty thorough response to why the Post editorial was bogus, but you cherry pick the weak responses because they support your stance.

    Setting up straw men doesn’t help your argument.

    I’m not necessarily in favor of any of the proposed regulations, but I think you’ve been making a number of questionable statements (and your “support” for that idiotic amendment putting “neutrality” on companies like Google was really a low point).

    So, no, I’m not “pro-regulation” as you like to say, but I think patting yourself on the back because a ridiculous Post editorial supports your position is pretty sad.

    ]]>