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 rule

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