The Forbes article is misleading.

1. It attempts to simultaneously argue that ISPs don't need additional regulation and oversight, but also that the FCC's rules are bad because they supposedly prevent additional oversight from the FTC.

2. It attempts to equate ISPs with other kinds of tech companies, particularly website operators. It then argues that a pillar of the current web is offering free or discounted services in return for targeted advertisements, and that it is unfair to restrict ISPs ability to do this when websites are allowed to do this and consumers clearly favor this tradeoff. (Also simultaneously arguing that ISPs haven't done much throttling/targeting yet, so allowing them to do so is not a problem.)

This is a dangerously disengenous comparison, as my ISP controls all websites that I visit and has the power to e.g. throttle any video service that I attempt to access besides its own, while YouTube has no control over my connection to a competitor's video service.

I have a number of smaller problems with the article, but those are my major ones.

The letter advances the same arguments and they have the same faults.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_logic

> The FCC provided no evidence to substantiate the proposition that broadband providers respected consumer privacy any less than other members of the internet ecosystem.

Without knowing entirely what they're referencing, I would say that we need to make sure broadband providers respect consumer privacy, regardless of what "other members of the internet ecosystem" are doing.

> Consumers enjoy the advertising-supported internet and innovation...

Uhh... no.

Actually yes, yes we do. We enjoy the internet that we have, that is partially enabled by ads. Even those of us that block ads (freeloaders, if you will), enjoy the internet that's supported by ads that other people don't block.

Actually, no, now I don't. I despise ads for reasons not least of which is that they are a form of insidious psychological conditioning.

I'd much rather have the predominant funding model be similar to services like patreon. Netflix has shown that you don't need ads, ads everywhere to produce quality media in this age, just as premium cable did in the past. I'd rather have a few channels or sites of quality than hundreds of pieces of crap

If such a model is to be protected from the dynamics of a free market economy (Higher demand driving prices higher) it requires significant government intervention, at the very least, analogous to the metro system in certain cities, to ensure that the different strata of society have access to it without breaking their backs. However, as with most non-essential consumables, the model is susceptible to privatisation whose motivation is often, solely the maximisation of profit. Perhaps a lobbying group analogous to the NRA could help counter such overtures for privatisation by the industry.

Right. The advertising-supported internet was good for a while, in my mind, only so that we could see just how bad it can be for the end user, and we can move on to better business models.

> I'd rather have a few channels or sites of quality than hundreds of pieces of crap

100% agreed

Also, weren't the ISPs injecting their own ads onto remotely hosted webpages? Is the claim here that people love looking at annoying banner ads?

Since forbes refuses to give me the article unless I disable adblock, is it really worth the read to me?

I decided a long time ago that Forbes was no longer for me. I want a free internet. Ad free.