Hecker 1!

Quinn Hecker

Professor Markwardt

WRT 205

7/1/18

Unit 2 Research Portfolio, Net Neutrality

Collins, Keith. “Net Neutrality Has Officially Been Repealed. Here's How That Could Affect

You.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 11 June 2018, www.nytimes.com/

2018/06/11/technology/net-neutrality-repeal.html.

In his article, “Net Neutrality Has Officially Been Repealed. Here’s How That Could

Affect You,” Keith Collins, a story editor on the Business desk at The New York Times,

specializing in visual storytelling, presents a more informative piece, but ultimately argues for

regulation. According to Collins, “Without rules prohibiting paid prioritization, a fast lane could

be occupied by big internet and media companies, as well as affluent households, while everyone

else would be left in the slow lane.” He supports this claim by discussing the practices that are

not longer prohibited to internet providers Then, he discusses consumer concerns. Collins’

purpose is to inform the reader about the situation as well as arguing for the regulation. The

target reader of the New York times is college educated, affluent and interested in what is

happening in the world. This article, in particular, does a bit more explaining than other articles

that assume the reader knows what is going on. The intended audience for this specific article is

the educated but ignorant reader. This work is significant because it successfully utilizes a

structure that holds the readers attention as well as using ethos, pathos and logos to inform the

educated but ignorant reader.

 Hecker 2!

One key word in this article is “official.” The first sentence of the article is “It’s official.”

Whether or not net neutrality would be repealed had been on the minds of many citizens for quite

some time. This first sentence piques the reader’s interest and motivates them to want to find out

more. A second key word is “censor.” Collins along with various other members of the

opposition, discuss “that the repeal would open the door for service providers to censor content

online or charge additional fees for better service - something that could hurt small companies -

and several states have taken steps to impose the rules on a local level.” A third key word is

“regulatory.” Collins argues, “The original rules laid out a regulatory plan that addressed a

rapidly changing internet.” Those rules prohibited various acts such as blocking - “internet

service providers could not discriminate against any lawful content by blocking websites or

apps,” throttling - “service providers could not slow the transmission of data because of the

nature of the content, as long as it was legal,” and paid prioritization - “service providers could

not create an internet fast lane for companies and consumers who paid premiums, and a slow

lane for those who didn’t.” A fourth key word is “bundles.” “Many consumer advocates argued

that once the rules were scrapped, broadband providers would begin selling the internet in

bundles, not unlike cable television packages.” This could include paying for a premium social

media package to access Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. A fifth key word is “e-commerce.”

“E-commerce start-ups have feared that they could end up on the losing end of paid

prioritization, with their websites and services loading more slowly than those run by internet

behemoths”

One key passage is a quote from Ajit Pai who claims the regulations “impeded

innovation” and were based upon “hypothetical harms and hysterical prophecies of doom.
 Hecker 3!

Another key passage points out the major concern that consumers “could suffer from pay-to-play

deals. Without rules prohibiting paid prioritization, a fast lane could be occupied by big internet

and media companies, as well as affluent households, while everyone else would be left in the

slow lane.” A third key passage is “some small-business owners are worried, too, that industry

giants could pay to get an edge and leave them on an unfair playing field.” Paid claims these

regulations were hurting our country; ironically, removing the regulations would hurt our country

more.

Two uses of the article are to inform the reader of the situation and then to explain to the

now informed reader that regulation is necessary. There are also limits. Pai points out a limit to

net neutrality; “America’s internet economy became the envy of the world thanks to a market-

based approach that began in the mid-1990s.” A second limit is that this ruling may not matter to

most consumers because “several states have taken measures to ensure the rules stay in effect.”

Some governors passed a law that replaced the federal rule while others used executive orders to

force the continuation of net neutrality. This argument is effective because Collins not only

presents his argument satisfactorily, but he presents the opposing argument as well.

Karr, Timothy. “Net Neutrality.” Free Press, 20 July 2017,

www.freepress.net/issues/free-open-internet/net-neutrality.

In his article, “The internet without Net Neutrality isn’t really the internet,” Timothy

Karr, author, discusses essence of the internet and racial justice. According to Karr, “Net

Neutrality keeps the internet free and open — enabling anyone to share and access information

of their choosing without interference from companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon.” He
 Hecker 4!

supports this claim by saying, “for years a lineup of phone- and cable-industry spokespeople has

called Net Neutrality “a solution in search of a problem.” Karr’s purpose is to convince citizens

to “urge your lawmakers to use a “resolution of disapproval” to overturn the FCC’s decision to

dismantle the Net Neutrality rules.” Karr’s intended audience is voters who will sign the petition

to reverse the FCC’s vote.

One key word is “slow.” Karr states, “these companies can now slow down their

competitors’ content or block political opinions they disagree with.” A second key word is

“consequences.” Karr explains, “The consequences will be particularly devastating for

marginalized communities media outlets have misrepresented or failed to serve. People of color,

the LGBTQ community, indigenous peoples and religious minorities in the United States rely on

the open internet to organize, access economic and educational opportunities, and fight back

against systemic discrimination.” A third key word is “oppression.” “Without Net Neutrality,

how will activists be able to fight oppression? What will happen to social movements like the

Movement for Black Lives?” A fourth key word is “incumbents.” Karr believes that the internet

will only let the incumbents succeed. A fifth key word is “rights.” “Net Neutrality is about

preserving civil rights online,” said Free Press Digital Campaigner and Kairos Fellow Lucia

Martinez.

One key passage is, “Net Neutrality is not negotiable. It’s essential to everything we

need in our society and democracy — from educational and economic opportunities to political

organizing and dissent.” This shows that Karr is firm on his stance and passionate. A second key

passage is, “a former Verizon lawyer and a Trump appointee, Pai ignored the widespread outcry

against his plan from millions of people, lawmakers, companies andco public-interest groups.”
 Hecker 5!

This shows that why he believes Pai is doing the wrong thing. Karr, along with various others,

are calling for Congress to use a “resolution of disapproval” to overturn the FCC’s “vote to

dismantle the Net Neutrality rules.” This key passage shows his purpose.

The use of this article are to get citizens involved in this issue. One limit of this decision

is, without Net Neutrality, the next Google or Facebook will never get off the ground. A second

limit is the unfair advantage rich people and companies will have. This argument was effective

and ended with a button to sign the petition; since it was so easily accessible, it definitely

increased the amount of citizens to signed it.

Knappenberger, Brian. The New York Times, The New York Times, 9 July 2014,

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/opinion/a-threat-to-internet-freedom.html

In his documentary, “A Threat To Internet Freedom,” Brian Knappenberger, an award-

winning producer and director, discusses the future of Internet freedom and access. According to

Knappenberger, “The concept of “network neutrality” has been so central to our experience of

the Internet, and such a driving force for innovation and expression, that most of us have taken it

for granted.” The main argument of the documentary is how important Net Neutrality is; they all

said that not only does Net Neutrality foster freedom, Net Neutrality IS freedom. He supports

this claim by saying, “when you visit a website, the phone or cable company that provides

Internet access shouldn’t get in the way. Information should be delivered to you quickly and

without discriminating about the content.” He then uses news footage, an interview from a

Harvard Law professor, Barack Obama, myriad of other scholars as well as various statistics to

back up his claims. Knappenberger’s purpose is to persuade the reader that “the Internet should
 Hecker 6!

be a level playing field.” The target reader of the New York times is college educated, affluent

and interested in what is happening in the world. This documentary is for that New York Times

reader who wanted a more in depth understanding of Net Neutrality. Knappenberger’s methods

are using credible sources and statistics to support his argument.

One key word is “toaster.” Knappenberger uses an analogy of a toaster and electricity to

simplify the complex idea of net neutrality. Two key words are “complex” and “simple.”

Knappenberger explains, “while the concept of net neutrality seems complex, the solution is

simple.” A fourth key word is “appointed.” Although Obama seems to understand the

importance of net neutrality, the chairman of the F.C.C. he appointed, Wheeler, proposed

dividing the Internet into fast lanes and slow lanes. A fifth key word is public. As stated by Cory

Doctorow, digital activist and journalist, “if you’re gonna take public subsidy, you can’t draw the

line at public benefit.”

One key passage is, “when I came up with this phrase, “net neutrality,” I didn’t mean for

it to be exciting.” This immediately establishes ethos because he coined the phrase. A second

key passage is, “throughout American history, neutral networks have actually been the backbone

of the American economy” Another key passage is stated by Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law

professor; “if Verizon had control of the internet, would Skype have been allowed?” He uses this

example to show that if a company was in charge of what is or is not allowed on the internet,

innovation would be stunted.

The uses are solutions. “We should classify broadband access as a utility. Internet

providers should be considered common carriers, just as cellphone companies are for voice

access, which they are not allowed to block or degrade. The Internet should be a level playing
 Hecker 7!

field.” Knappenberger ends his documentary by explaining the limits; “internet service

providers could split the flow of traffic into tiers, by offering priority treatment to big

corporations who would pay higher fees. That would mean a fast lane for the rich and a dirt road

for others, harming small businesses and users. Meanwhile, telecom behemoths turn huge profits

that increase their leverage.” It is very effective because he knows so much that the reader wants

to learn from him rather than listen to his opinion, just to refute it.

McMillan, Robert. “What Everyone Gets Wrong in the Debate Over Net Neutrality.” Wired,

Conde Nast, 6 Mar. 2018, www.wired.com/2014/06/net-neutrality-missing/.

In his article, “What Everyone Gets Wrong in the Debate Over Net Neutrality,” Robert

McMillan, Senior Writer on WIRED, argues “Most of the points of the debate are artificial,

distracting, and based on an incorrect mental model on how the internet works.” According to

McMillan “Today, privileged companies—including Google, Facebook, and Netflix—already

benefit from what are essentially internet fast lanes, and this has been the case for years.” He

supports this claim by quoting Craig Labovitz, the CEO of DeepField Networks. McMillan

explains that Labovitz’s “sole mission is to track how companies build internet infrastructure,

probably knows more about the design of the modern internet than anyone else.” Labovitz states

that the fast lane is “how the internet is built today.” Then, he quotes Dave Taht, a developer of

open-source networking software who says, “The net neutrality debate has got many facets to it,

and most of the points of the debate are artificial, distracting, and based on an incorrect mental

model on how the internet works” McMillan’s purpose is to separate real news from fake news

in the minds of the reader. McMillan’s intended audience is those who are, by his definition,
 Hecker 8!

uninformed about the true situation of net neutrality. This work is significant because there are

very few articles explaining this side of the argument.

The first key word is “neutral.” McMillan explains, “Though the network will never be

neutral, we can find ways of promoting a vibrant market for fast internet speeds that's open to

everyone.” The second key word is “model.” McMillan states, “The net neutrality debate is

based on a mental model of the internet that hasn't been accurate for more than a decade.” The

third key word is “problem.” He believes that the “problem today isn't the fast lanes. The

problem is whether the ISPs will grow so large that they have undue control over the market for

fast speeds—whether they can independently decide who gets access to what connection at what

price.” The fourth key word is “explore.” McMillan argues, “instead of railing against fast

lanes, we should be pushing Washington to explore ideas like this that could actually promote

competition among ISPs.” The fifth key word is “misdirected.” His stance is "the debate is

misdirected.”

The first key passage is “Even Tim Wu, the man who coined the term net neutrality, will

tell you that the fast lane idea isn't what it seems. ‘The fast lane is not a literal truth,’ he says.

‘But it's a sense that you should have a fair shot.’” The second key passage is “We shouldn't

waste so much breath on the idea of keeping the network completely neutral. It isn't neutral

now..” The third key passage is “What we should really be doing is looking for ways we can

increase competition among ISPs—ways we can prevent the Comcasts and the AT&Ts from

gaining so much power that they can completely control the market for internet bandwidth.” He

not only presents a problem, but also a solution.

 Hecker 9!

The use of this article is to explain to readers that he believes they have been

misinformed. The limit, however, is that both sides try to discredit the other. This article is

effective because McMillan quotes various credible people to prove the ethos of this argument.

Statt, Nick. “California Man Arrested for Threatening to Kill FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's Family

over Net Neutrality.” The Verge, The Verge, 29 June 2018, www.theverge.com/

2018/6/29/17519742/fcc-chariman-ajit-man-death-threats-markara-man-arrested-net-

neutrality.

In his article, “California man arrested for threatening to kill FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s

family over net neutrality,” Nick Statt, a San Francisco-based reporter, argues “the chairman has

been subjected to a fair amount of heated criticism online and off.” He supports this claim by

telling the story of a 33-year-old resident of Norwalk, California who was arrested for

threatening the lives of Ajit Pai and his family. Statt’s purpose is to inform the public about the

“Man [who] intended to “scare” Pai because he was “anger” over the repealing of net neutrality

protections” Statt’s target audience is American males interested in politics, technology, science

and cars. The work is significant because it informs the reader on the backlash Ajit Pai is

enduring for the net neutrality repeal.

One key word is “traced.” The FBI was able to trace the emails to this man’s home,

“where he acknowledged sending the threats.” A second key word is “affidavit.” While under

oath, the man “confirmed his use of an email alias, ‘stubblemanliness@gmail.com’ allegedly

because the alias would make him seem ‘tougher.’” This lets the reader understand that the man

who intended to scare Pai pleaded guilty. A third key word is “charged.” This man is being
 Hecker 1! 0

charged with “threatening to murder a family member of an acting US official with the intent of

interfering with said official’s job performance and duties, or threatening to retaliative against a

US official for their specific job performance.” A fourth key word is “prision.” This man’s

charge “carries a maximum of 10 years in prison.” A fifth key word is “cancelled.” Since “Pai’s

controversial stance on net neutrality directly resulted in a successful vote to remove the Title II

classification for internet service providers,” he has had to cancel several appearances due to

“death threats made against him.” This was not a standalone incident.

These three key passages explain the contents of the three emails. “The first email

allegedly accused Pai of causing the suicide of a teenager through his actions that led to the net

neutrality vote.” “The second email contained an explicit threat against members of Pai’s family,

as well as a listing of three locations in and around Arlington, Virginia where Pai is said to live.”

“The third email allegedly contained a photo of Pai and a separate photo of Pai and his family.”

The use of this article is to inform the public of the backlash Ajit Pai is enduring.

Another use of this is that the FBI was able to find the man sending threats before anyone got

hurt. One limit is that Pai has had to cancel appearances as a result of various death threats made

against him A second limit is that this one man’s arrest does not solve the problem. As

aforementioned, there are a myriad of people threatening Pai and his family. This article is

significant as it informs the reader on the backlash Ajit Pai is enduring for the net neutrality

repeal.

Steiling, Johannes. “Why We Need Net Neutrality: Johannes Steiling at

TEDxYouth@AnnArbor.” YouTube, TedX, 24 Apr. 2014, https://youtu.be/dvz1hfDXpQA

 Hecker 1! 1

In his TedX talk, “Why We Need Net Neutrality,” Johannes Steiling, a sophomore at

Skyline High School, discusses what net neutrality is and why it is important. According to

Steiling, “every website on the internet should be equally accessible to you.” He supports this

claim by beginning his talk with an analogy to a new lane that only BMW’s can drive on. This

creates a base before discussing a topic that most of his audience, high school students, may not

fully understand. Then, he uses pathos and logos to passionately and effectively portray his

views. Steiling’s purpose is to inform high school students about this topic. He establishes an

academic tone to portray the facts for an audience of 14 to 18-year-olds. This work is significant

because students will often listen to peers more than those in an authoritative role.

One key word is “equally.” Steiling believes without net neutrality, consumers will no

longer have the ability to access everything equally. A second key word is “discriminate.” He

explains, “without net neutrality rules, providers are free to discriminate against certain

services.” A third key word is “option.” After explaining that he believes this ruling is a

nightmare, Steiling begins to list possible options. He not only describes a problem, but presents

solutions as well. A fourth key word is “inventor.” Steiling quotes the inventory of the World

Wide Web, Timothy Berners-Lee in saying “our rights are being infringed more and more on

every side, and the danger is that we get used to it.” A fifth key word is “car.” Steiling ends his

TedX talk by circling back around to his car analogy and leaving the audience with something to

think about.

One key passage is, “smaller companies and new startups don't have a chance no matter

how good their products or services are.” This shows a real-life example of how repealing net

neutrality can hurt the public. In a second key passage, Steiling adds, “in the end it’s also bad for
 Hecker 1! 2

you; it’s bad for the customer that does’t get the best products and services but hardly any

innovation or improvement all paired with high prices.” This brings it back to the consumer and

shows how it can impact them directly. A third key passage states, “mass spying without a

previous suspicion or a court ruling is likely to increase even more if the internet is controlled

and regulated by the government in its agencies.”

Similarly to Collins, Steiling’s two uses of the article are to inform the reader of the

situation and then to explain to the now informed reader that regulation is necessary. The limits,

however, are present because this TedX talk was filmed before net neutrality was repealed.

Therefore, some of his solutions are no longer possible. This speech is very effective; the top

comment on his video is “I honestly didn't understand the concept of net neutrality, Thanks.”

Steimle, Josh. “Am I The Only Techie Against Net Neutrality?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 2 Feb.

2016, www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-

neutrality/#393d2e7270d5.

In his article, “Am I The Only Techie Against Net Neutrality?.” Josh Steimle, founder

and CEO of MWI, argues against net neutrality. According to Steimle “No, I am not a paid shill

for the cable industry. I am no fan of Comcast or any other ISP I’ve ever had the "pleasure" of

dealing with.” He supports this claim by stating, “if monopolies are bad, why should we trust the

U.S. government, the largest, most powerful monopoly in the world?” Then he discusses how

net neutrality would stifle privacy and freedom. Steimle’s purpose is to explain to the reader that

he has “no problem with net neutrality as a principle or concept, I have serious concerns about

Net Neutrality as legislation or public policy.” Steimle’s audience is “affluent business

 Hecker 1! 3

professionals catering to our users' interests and passions centered around business, investing,

luxury lifestyles and politics.” This work is significant because he teaches the public that not

every “techie” is on the side of regulation.

One key word is “deregulation.” Steimle claims, “we see that where deregulation has

occurred, innovation has bloomed, such as with telephony services. Do you think we’d all be

walking around with smartphones today if the government still ran the phone system?” A second

key word is “power.” Steimle asserts that he doesn’t like “how much power the telecoms have.

But the reason they’re big and powerful isn’t because there is a lack of government regulation,

but because of it. Government regulations are written by large corporate interests which collude

with officials in government.” A third key word is “privacy.” Steimle believes that free speech

can not exist with privacy. A fourth key word is “omniscient.” Steimle states that if he believed

the U.S. government was “omniscient, had only good intentions, and that those intentions would

never change, I would be in favor of Net Neutrality and more.” A fifth key word is “bandwidth.”

Steimle states, “Internet bandwidth is, at least currently, a finite resource and has to be allocated

somehow. We can let politicians decide, or we can let you and me decide by leaving it up to the

free market. If we choose politicians, we will see the Internet become another mismanaged

public monopoly, subject to political whims and increased scrutiny from our friends at the NSA.

If we leave it up to the free market we will, in time, receive more of what we want at a lower

price. It may not be a perfect process, but it will be better than the alternative.”

Steimle’s three main points against the “Net Neutrality” legislation are “I Want More

Competition,” “I Want More Privacy,” and "I Want More Freedom.” The first key passage is in

regards to competition. “The U.S. government has shown time after time that it is ineffective at
 Hecker 1! 4

managing much of anything. This is by design. The Founders intentionally created a government

that was slow, inefficient, and plagued by gridlock, because they knew the greatest danger to

individual freedom came from a government that could move quickly--too quickly for the people

to react in time to protect themselves. If we value our freedom, we need government to be slow.

But if government is slow, we shouldn’t rely on it to provide us with products and services we

want in a timely manner at a high level of quality.” The second key passage is in regards to

privacy. “Free speech cannot exist without privacy, and the U.S. government has been shown to

be unworthy of guarding the privacy of its citizens.” He goes on to ask the reader, “Should we

believe that under Net Neutrality the government will trust the telecoms to police themselves?”

The third key passage is in regards to freedom. “Many of us see the U.S. government as a

benevolent and all-knowing parent with the best interests of you and me, its children, at heart. I

see the U.S. government as a dangerous tyrant, influenced by large corporate interests, seeking to

control everyone and everything.”

This article is the only article that I could find written by an informed “techie” who is

against the net neutrality regulations. The use of this article is to allow citizens to understand the

argument from both points of view before selecting a side to join. The limit, as pointed out by

Steimle, “a false dichotomy is being perpetuated by the media in regards to this matter.” This

argument is very effective; he uses his ethos as the founder and CEO of MWI, as well as logos to

explain to readers why net neutrality isn’t what they think it is.

bbcnews. “What Is Net Neutrality and How Could It Affect You? - BBC News.” YouTube,

YouTube, 14 Dec. 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq-2Yk5OgKc.

 Hecker 1! 5

In their video, “What is net neutrality and how could it affect you?,” BBC News, a

British public broadcast service, argues “without net neutrality, your Internet Service Provider or

ISP such as BT or Comcast could influence what you see and how quickly you see it.”

According to BBC “net neutrality demands that ISPs should treat all web traffic the same.” They

support this claim by using car traffic as an analogy. Then they state “to access the fast lane

companies have to pay the ISP more money. This favors big companies, who can afford to pay.”

BBC’s purpose is to inform consumers how net neutrality can impact ‘you.’ BBC’s intended

audience are “educated, affluent and career-oriented, Worldly Achievers.” This work is

significant because it teaches their consumers about the issue.

One key word is “before.” This scenario has happened before. BBC states, “in 2014,

before net neutrality regulations were enshrined in law in the US, Comcast customers noticed

Netflix streaming speeds plummeting. It wasn’t until Netflix agreed to pay Comcast more

money that streaming speeds shot up again.” A second key word is “consumer.” BBC points out

that “if companies are forced to pay for the “fast lane,” the price increase might be pushed back

onto the consumer.” A third key word is “arrangement.” BBC explains “if Netflix makes an

arrangement with an ISP, the ISP could block Netflix’s competitors from reaching customers.” A

fourth key word is “own.” Many ISPs have created their own streaming services. BBC points

out that “they could favor their own content and block competitors out completely.” A fifth key

word is “censor.” This is not just about business. According to BBC, they could also censor

content they do not agree with.

One key passage is, “without net neutrality, you might find some services slow down

unless your favorite sites pay the ISPs.” A second key passage is, “it could also lead to higher
 Hecker 1! 6

prices for you. ISPs could charge premium prices for people who want to watch video or listen

to music at peak times.” A third key passage is, “less competition means less pressure to

improve products and services. And if smaller companies fold, the consumer will have less

choice.”

The use of this video is to teach the public “net neutrality creates a level playing field

which spurs innovation.” The limits of the video are that they do not provide any solutions to the

problems they point out. This video is effective because it teaches their consumers to decide for

themselves whether “net neutrality rules [should] be protected, loosened a little, or even scrapped

all together.”