12 ms·

Net Neutrality Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal Was Written by Comcast Attorney

359 points by nkurz 9y ago

kurthr 9y ago
Well heck, the FCC decision^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d stand-up comedy was written by an Verizon attorney so why not some comedy in the WSJ? Edited for support: https://gizmodo.com/fcc-chairman-is-laughing-at-americans-who-dont-want-to-1795193063 https://gizmodo.com/fcc-chairman-is-laughing-at-americans-wh... https://youtu.be/DzHleu03fxY https://youtu.be/DzHleu03fxY
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
stephengillie 9y ago
> The op-ed contained an unusual disclaimer: >>> Mr. Leibowitz was a Democratic commissioner at the FTC from 2004-13 and chairman beginning in 2009. As a partner at the law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, he represents both technology companies and broadband providers. > The reference to both industries reads as an effort to be upfront about any potential conflict of interest, but also to suggest that Leibowitz has clients on both sides of the issue, so his argument is dispassionate. Tech companies, historically, support net neutrality, while broadband providers oppose it. The op-ed was prefaced with a contextual paragraph. So this wasn't a "sleeper" influencing public opinion, a la Ender's Game. The WSJ made sure this highly-public person was properly contextualized.
- kurthr 9y ago
  The Op-ed was not prefaced by such a contextual paragraph. Please see: https://www.wsj.com/articles/everybody-calm-down-about-net-neutrality-1513124905 https://www.wsj.com/articles/everybody-calm-down-about-net-n... The second paragraph of the commentary by the The Intercept contained your quoted section, which is at the end of the op-ed and not visible in the first page of the paywalled opinion article.
  - stevenwoo 9y ago
    Fair point, but I wouldn't expect to see anything but a corporate friendly op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, nor would I think anyone who regularly reads the Wall Street Journal. Even the New York Times can be pretty corporate/middle of the road.
    - vxNsr 9y ago
      The WSJ regularly had Op-eds from Obama and other democrats, they even allowed the Iranian president a space to spew his hate. I'd argue they are just as open about who can write in their op-eds as any large newspaper.
    - danso 9y ago
      Op-eds are often supposed to be seen as different (and interesting) than what the paper's editorial board and columnists typically argue. "Op-ed" is supposed to be an abbreviation for "opposite editorial" -- though of course the pinion editor (who is usually part of the editorial board) has final say in that
      - nkurz 9y ago
        I'd never before heard it claimed that "Op Ed" was short for "Opposite Editorial", and had presumed it was short for the catchall "Opinion / Editorial". But you are correct: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/204681/op-ed-or-editorial https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/204681/op-ed-or-.... It seems worth clarifying, though, that "Opposite" is referring to the layout of the page (ie, the "facing the editorial page"), and not to the position in the debate (not "arguing against the editorial position"). The two earliest first cited usages in the OED makes this clear: 1924 R. H. Lyman World Almanac 25/1 This ‘op. ed. page’ (page opposite the editorial page) is unique in American newspapers. It is a page of opinion in all the arts. 1931 J. W. Barrett World, Flesh, & Messrs. Pulitzer iv. 82 Swope developed..the idea of a distinctive ‘opposite editorial page’ consisting of two ‘columnists’, one book reviewer and the daily output of the dramatic critic. We called this the ‘op-ed’ for short.
  - 9y ago
Spivak 9y ago
It seems like the author is just looking for something to be angry about. He ascribed his own meaning to a disclaimer in an article and then gets angry that it doesn't meet his expectation. Worse than that is the fact that it really shouldn't matter -- Jon Leibowitz could be head ball-fondler at Comcast for all it matters to his argument. This entire piece is spreading massive amounts of FUD because a guy wrote a thing and wasn't explicit enough for his taste. My favorite bit: > To go a step further, Leibowitz’s view is also wrong. Net neutrality supporters fear that kicking enforcement over to the FTC means that broadband providers would only get caught discriminating against websites after the fact. And the FTC is focusing on stopping “deception,” which critics have said could mean that if a company discloses to the customer it will block or throttle certain content, the agency won’t step in. Author apparently doesn't understand that the following paragraph is literally the intended outcome of the plan. It's right there in explicit detail on pg 133 of the plan. > We eliminate the conduct rules adopted in the Title II Order—including the general conduct rule and the prohibitions on paid prioritization, blocking, and throttling. We do so for three reasons...
thisisit 9y ago
While there is a case to be made about news op-eds and their overall influence this article is more noise than content. The disclaimer says he represents broadband providers. There is no coming back even if it says technology companies.
freetime2 9y ago
I just don't see the issue here. They disclose that his law firm represents broadband providers. That, the fact that it's an Op-Ed, and the content of the article ought to be enough for readers to understand that it's an opinion piece and likely to be biased.
- JustSomeNobody 9y ago
  The same way people should be able to discern fake news from real? Sadly, most people just aren't that discerning.
KasianFranks 9y ago
Who exactly is leading the pack here?
Afforess 9y ago
I am always impressed by the number of motte and bailey commentors here. The WSJ cravenly lets the most hated corporations write featured Op-eds and that's normal? Ho-hum? Business as usual!? We need to seriously reconsider what we want out of journalism. I don't want to live anywhere where this sort of media is okay. I'm not sure why anyone else is suddenly okay with this either. The "Free Market" was supposed to be a tool to more efficiently organize labor and capital, not enslave us. It is supposed to work for us, it is our tool. But if readers are now _okay_ with literal shilling in media, then that's it. We've been captured by our own tools, slaves to our own machines. I keep questioning my decision to have a Washington Post subscription, but I'll sleep better tonight knowing it goes towards something that at least _tries_ to be journalism.
- colordrops 9y ago
  In case you were wondering like what "motte and bailey" means: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    I agree that the described debating tactic exists (thank you for sharing the explanation), what I find most interesting is the bailey example given isn't that controversial ("cultural knowledge is just as valid as scientific knowledge"). I suppose it depends on the context in which it was used, but I can think of plenty of examples where such a statement would be banal.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      The question is not whether there is just as valid cultural knowledge, but whether culture as a source of knowledge is just as valid as science, which it is not. If cultural knowledge happens to align with sciencific knowledge, then it is valid as well, but what establishes validity is science/the scientific method, not culture.
      - 9y ago
JonasJSchreiber 9y ago
WSJ did a really good job with this too. I opened the News app on my iPad after work today and found this story at the top of my feed. Their stories are usually paywalled, so I was surprised they featured anywhere near the top, and I tapped, curious. The argument did seem pretty fair and balanced. It presented both sides (or seemed to). On reflection (and I wouldn't have reflected if not for The Intercept's story) the article basically echoed Ajit Pai's argument saying anyone who gets up in arms about regulating ISPs is overreacting. And it almost made me believe I was naive for thinking the repeal was a grave moment in Internet history. I don't know how they got the story so highly ranked on Apple News, but the pessimist in me wants to say money changed hands.
- vxNsr 9y ago
  When I went to the story I had to sign in... how'd you get around that?
  - vlozko 9y ago
    Apple News seems to give me full access without a subscription. I don’t know if this is a temporary, promotional thing.
paule89 9y ago
Is it just my techbubble, but how can such a law come through, if the general public opposes it so much? I mean how corrupt or ignorant have you to be to not notice this.
- rev_null 9y ago
  Net Neutrality repeal was very popular among deceased Americans.
- GeneralMayhem 9y ago
  >how can such a law come through, if the general public opposes it so much? It's not a law, it's a decision made by a federal regulatory agency. Only Congress can enact laws. The FCC commissioners are appointed by the president, so they're more like a branch of the executive branch than anything else. Congress can overrule them, but they're unlikely to do so under the current makeup, because: >how corrupt or ignorant have you to be The Republican Party is plumbing new depths of corruption and ignorance by the hour. Nothing would surprise me at this point.
  - Mikhail_Edoshin 9y ago
    Net neutrality itself "not a law, it's a decision made by a federal regulatory agency". It's a government regulation of 2011 (with questionable authority) and now it's lessened in a rather mild way.
  - matwood 9y ago
    Except it was a Republican who tried to move a NN type law through, and it was the Democrats who only wanted to move forward with the common carrier designation. https://morningconsult.com/2017/01/23/thune-net-neutrality-repeal-threat-bring-democrats-compromise/ https://morningconsult.com/2017/01/23/thune-net-neutrality-r...
- Mikhail_Edoshin 9y ago
  These things are not to be decided by majority. For example, you cannot vote up to take someone's lawful property, even if the general public supports this (which, I'm sure, it may be induced to, as we can see with this issue).
twobyfour 9y ago
And if you expect the WSJ to be anything other than pro-corporate, I've got a bridge to sell you.
- soundwave106 9y ago
  I didn't expect anything different from the WSJ, but it's worth pointing out that pro-net neutrality is also "corporate" in a way. Small to medium size Internet commerce / content businesses have largely been the driving force behind public awareness of net neutrality, in my opinion. (I've noticed this time around that the largest Internet companies have largely kept quiet about the issue this time around. The fact that there has been such a big public response to this to me shows how important keeping an Internet around that is more than just Google/Facebook/Amazon is.)
H99189 9y ago
I wish all our energy being spent on NN would go towards breaking ISP monopolies, it would achieve the same goals of NN including better services, cheaper prices.
- jjj2222mml 9y ago
  What would you do to break the ISP monopolies?
  - TheBeardKing 9y ago
    I'd decouple the content creation from the network delivery. How soon before cable companies start zero-rating their own content? Also, local regulations granting monopolies have to start being rolled back, or municipalities buy the infrastructure from the ISPs and let them compete to use it.
- 13years 9y ago
  The end result would be better and the discussion around the lack of a free market in ISP's should be the primary public discourse. NN doesn't solve that and removing it also doesn't solve that. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pgak38/the-fcc-cant-help-cities-trapped-by-predatory-internet-deals-with-big-telecom https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pgak38/the-fcc-ca...
kapad 9y ago
Paraphrasing the most relevant line in any comment on this article. > Agree with it or not, it isn't, in fact it is expicitly not, objective journalism. credits: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15931916 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15931916

359 points by nkurz 9y ago

Well heck, the FCC decision^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d stand-up comedy was written by an Verizon attorney so why not some comedy in the WSJ? Edited for support: https://gizmodo.com/fcc-chairman-is-laughing-at-americans-who-dont-want-to-1795193063 https://gizmodo.com/fcc-chairman-is-laughing-at-americans-wh... https://youtu.be/DzHleu03fxY https://youtu.be/DzHleu03fxY

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

stephengillie 9y ago

> The op-ed contained an unusual disclaimer: >>> Mr. Leibowitz was a Democratic commissioner at the FTC from 2004-13 and chairman beginning in 2009. As a partner at the law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, he represents both technology companies and broadband providers. > The reference to both industries reads as an effort to be upfront about any potential conflict of interest, but also to suggest that Leibowitz has clients on both sides of the issue, so his argument is dispassionate. Tech companies, historically, support net neutrality, while broadband providers oppose it. The op-ed was prefaced with a contextual paragraph. So this wasn't a "sleeper" influencing public opinion, a la Ender's Game. The WSJ made sure this highly-public person was properly contextualized.

kurthr 9y ago
The Op-ed was not prefaced by such a contextual paragraph. Please see: https://www.wsj.com/articles/everybody-calm-down-about-net-neutrality-1513124905 https://www.wsj.com/articles/everybody-calm-down-about-net-n... The second paragraph of the commentary by the The Intercept contained your quoted section, which is at the end of the op-ed and not visible in the first page of the paywalled opinion article.
- stevenwoo 9y ago
  Fair point, but I wouldn't expect to see anything but a corporate friendly op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, nor would I think anyone who regularly reads the Wall Street Journal. Even the New York Times can be pretty corporate/middle of the road.
  - vxNsr 9y ago
    The WSJ regularly had Op-eds from Obama and other democrats, they even allowed the Iranian president a space to spew his hate. I'd argue they are just as open about who can write in their op-eds as any large newspaper.
  - danso 9y ago
    Op-eds are often supposed to be seen as different (and interesting) than what the paper's editorial board and columnists typically argue. "Op-ed" is supposed to be an abbreviation for "opposite editorial" -- though of course the pinion editor (who is usually part of the editorial board) has final say in that
    - nkurz 9y ago
      I'd never before heard it claimed that "Op Ed" was short for "Opposite Editorial", and had presumed it was short for the catchall "Opinion / Editorial". But you are correct: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/204681/op-ed-or-editorial https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/204681/op-ed-or-.... It seems worth clarifying, though, that "Opposite" is referring to the layout of the page (ie, the "facing the editorial page"), and not to the position in the debate (not "arguing against the editorial position"). The two earliest first cited usages in the OED makes this clear: 1924 R. H. Lyman World Almanac 25/1 This ‘op. ed. page’ (page opposite the editorial page) is unique in American newspapers. It is a page of opinion in all the arts. 1931 J. W. Barrett World, Flesh, & Messrs. Pulitzer iv. 82 Swope developed..the idea of a distinctive ‘opposite editorial page’ consisting of two ‘columnists’, one book reviewer and the daily output of the dramatic critic. We called this the ‘op-ed’ for short.
- 9y ago

Spivak 9y ago

It seems like the author is just looking for something to be angry about. He ascribed his own meaning to a disclaimer in an article and then gets angry that it doesn't meet his expectation. Worse than that is the fact that it really shouldn't matter -- Jon Leibowitz could be head ball-fondler at Comcast for all it matters to his argument. This entire piece is spreading massive amounts of FUD because a guy wrote a thing and wasn't explicit enough for his taste. My favorite bit: > To go a step further, Leibowitz’s view is also wrong. Net neutrality supporters fear that kicking enforcement over to the FTC means that broadband providers would only get caught discriminating against websites after the fact. And the FTC is focusing on stopping “deception,” which critics have said could mean that if a company discloses to the customer it will block or throttle certain content, the agency won’t step in. Author apparently doesn't understand that the following paragraph is literally the intended outcome of the plan. It's right there in explicit detail on pg 133 of the plan. > We eliminate the conduct rules adopted in the Title II Order—including the general conduct rule and the prohibitions on paid prioritization, blocking, and throttling. We do so for three reasons...

thisisit 9y ago

While there is a case to be made about news op-eds and their overall influence this article is more noise than content. The disclaimer says he represents broadband providers. There is no coming back even if it says technology companies.

freetime2 9y ago

I just don't see the issue here. They disclose that his law firm represents broadband providers. That, the fact that it's an Op-Ed, and the content of the article ought to be enough for readers to understand that it's an opinion piece and likely to be biased.

JustSomeNobody 9y ago
The same way people should be able to discern fake news from real? Sadly, most people just aren't that discerning.

KasianFranks 9y ago

Who exactly is leading the pack here?

Afforess 9y ago

I am always impressed by the number of motte and bailey commentors here. The WSJ cravenly lets the most hated corporations write featured Op-eds and that's normal? Ho-hum? Business as usual!? We need to seriously reconsider what we want out of journalism. I don't want to live anywhere where this sort of media is okay. I'm not sure why anyone else is suddenly okay with this either. The "Free Market" was supposed to be a tool to more efficiently organize labor and capital, not enslave us. It is supposed to work for us, it is our tool. But if readers are now _okay_ with literal shilling in media, then that's it. We've been captured by our own tools, slaves to our own machines. I keep questioning my decision to have a Washington Post subscription, but I'll sleep better tonight knowing it goes towards something that at least _tries_ to be journalism.

colordrops 9y ago
In case you were wondering like what "motte and bailey" means: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  I agree that the described debating tactic exists (thank you for sharing the explanation), what I find most interesting is the bailey example given isn't that controversial ("cultural knowledge is just as valid as scientific knowledge"). I suppose it depends on the context in which it was used, but I can think of plenty of examples where such a statement would be banal.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    The question is not whether there is just as valid cultural knowledge, but whether culture as a source of knowledge is just as valid as science, which it is not. If cultural knowledge happens to align with sciencific knowledge, then it is valid as well, but what establishes validity is science/the scientific method, not culture.
    - 9y ago

JonasJSchreiber 9y ago

WSJ did a really good job with this too. I opened the News app on my iPad after work today and found this story at the top of my feed. Their stories are usually paywalled, so I was surprised they featured anywhere near the top, and I tapped, curious. The argument did seem pretty fair and balanced. It presented both sides (or seemed to). On reflection (and I wouldn't have reflected if not for The Intercept's story) the article basically echoed Ajit Pai's argument saying anyone who gets up in arms about regulating ISPs is overreacting. And it almost made me believe I was naive for thinking the repeal was a grave moment in Internet history. I don't know how they got the story so highly ranked on Apple News, but the pessimist in me wants to say money changed hands.

vxNsr 9y ago
When I went to the story I had to sign in... how'd you get around that?
- vlozko 9y ago
  Apple News seems to give me full access without a subscription. I don’t know if this is a temporary, promotional thing.

paule89 9y ago

Is it just my techbubble, but how can such a law come through, if the general public opposes it so much? I mean how corrupt or ignorant have you to be to not notice this.

rev_null 9y ago
Net Neutrality repeal was very popular among deceased Americans.
GeneralMayhem 9y ago
>how can such a law come through, if the general public opposes it so much? It's not a law, it's a decision made by a federal regulatory agency. Only Congress can enact laws. The FCC commissioners are appointed by the president, so they're more like a branch of the executive branch than anything else. Congress can overrule them, but they're unlikely to do so under the current makeup, because: >how corrupt or ignorant have you to be The Republican Party is plumbing new depths of corruption and ignorance by the hour. Nothing would surprise me at this point.
- Mikhail_Edoshin 9y ago
  Net neutrality itself "not a law, it's a decision made by a federal regulatory agency". It's a government regulation of 2011 (with questionable authority) and now it's lessened in a rather mild way.
- matwood 9y ago
  Except it was a Republican who tried to move a NN type law through, and it was the Democrats who only wanted to move forward with the common carrier designation. https://morningconsult.com/2017/01/23/thune-net-neutrality-repeal-threat-bring-democrats-compromise/ https://morningconsult.com/2017/01/23/thune-net-neutrality-r...
Mikhail_Edoshin 9y ago
These things are not to be decided by majority. For example, you cannot vote up to take someone's lawful property, even if the general public supports this (which, I'm sure, it may be induced to, as we can see with this issue).

twobyfour 9y ago

And if you expect the WSJ to be anything other than pro-corporate, I've got a bridge to sell you.

soundwave106 9y ago
I didn't expect anything different from the WSJ, but it's worth pointing out that pro-net neutrality is also "corporate" in a way. Small to medium size Internet commerce / content businesses have largely been the driving force behind public awareness of net neutrality, in my opinion. (I've noticed this time around that the largest Internet companies have largely kept quiet about the issue this time around. The fact that there has been such a big public response to this to me shows how important keeping an Internet around that is more than just Google/Facebook/Amazon is.)

H99189 9y ago

I wish all our energy being spent on NN would go towards breaking ISP monopolies, it would achieve the same goals of NN including better services, cheaper prices.

jjj2222mml 9y ago
What would you do to break the ISP monopolies?
- TheBeardKing 9y ago
  I'd decouple the content creation from the network delivery. How soon before cable companies start zero-rating their own content? Also, local regulations granting monopolies have to start being rolled back, or municipalities buy the infrastructure from the ISPs and let them compete to use it.
13years 9y ago
The end result would be better and the discussion around the lack of a free market in ISP's should be the primary public discourse. NN doesn't solve that and removing it also doesn't solve that. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pgak38/the-fcc-cant-help-cities-trapped-by-predatory-internet-deals-with-big-telecom https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pgak38/the-fcc-ca...

kapad 9y ago

Paraphrasing the most relevant line in any comment on this article. > Agree with it or not, it isn't, in fact it is expicitly not, objective journalism. credits: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15931916 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15931916