Review the editorial section of your local newspaper or of an online newspaper (US News, USA Today, New York Times, Los Angeles Times etc.). Select an editorial that catches your interest. Write a brief overview of the article that you have selected. After you have written the overview, write a 2-3 page argument opposing the view of the article. Your final submission should be a total of 3-4 pages (1 page for the review, 2-3 pages for the argument) APA formatted paper. Be sure to include a copy of the article when you submit to the drop box.
Editorial-The New York Times
The current editorial is about the strategy and proposal of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the case of net neutrality rules. The commission wants to gut the net neutrality rules that keep powerful broadband companies from calling the shots on the internet, at the expense of consumers. It is now led by an anti-regulation ideologue appointed by President Trump.
Its ideology is about cynical guise as restoring internet freedom. The new F.C.C. Chairman, Ajit Pai, wants to expand freedom rules. As a result to give big telecom companies carte blanche to treat the content of their subsidiaries. Along with this, partners more favorably than information from other companies. It is a new practice that AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon are already starting to employ. The plan is to demand fees from companies like Netflix and YouTube to deliver videos and other content to customers.
According to the proposal of Mr. Pai, commission which is elected by two to one majority has shown approved concern in this matter. The FCC has approved the proposal of Mr. Pai and stated that there would be little stopping the broadband industry from squelching competition, limiting consumer choice and raising prices. The different association presents something mixed views over this situation. In this manner, the previous chairman of FCC, Tom Wheeler, helps to put the rules. Another situation, Mr. Pai was attacking in place in 2015, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld them last year.
In this article, there are views about presenting the net neutrality over all the internet access. It is the principle in which Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication (BOARD, 2017).
The one argument proposed by Mr. Pai is about the existing regulations which are hurting the internet. The overall situation was that the 12 largest internet service providers reduced investment by 5.6 percent between 2014 and 2016 because the net neutrality rules were too onerous. But, he is providing incomplete evidence in his case. In another time, a public-interest group that supports net neutrality, Free Press has found that total investment by publicly traded broadband companies increased 5.3 percent between 2013-14 and 2015-16.
Net neutrality is something which ensures the independent regularity of a consumer of the internet. So, this right of independence should be best ensured through providing basic Net neutrality. It is something, which is today a citizen entitlement like other basic rights. The same with the situation of health care in which the market, often favors the kleptocrats, favors inefficiency and high prices. It’s not the “market” idealists. The more and more conversations started to rise, and Ross offers occasional over-the-top ideas to get the conversation started on solutions to entrenched and pressing issues. Another argument is that the large telecommunications companies have been raking in profits in recent years and their strategy is not to remain behind in making an opposition in this case.
Another haphazard situation is about the large telecommunications companies which are making profits at an extraordinary level in recent years. They are still making the revenues of multibillion-dollar acquisitions. The charter is presented according to which there was an expenditure of more than $65 billion last year to buy Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. AT&T bought DirecTV for $48.5 billion in 2015 and is trying to buy Time Warner, the media company, for $85 billion.
Mr. Pai is not only lamenting for the broadband industry which is based on alternative facts; it misses the bigger point. Net neutrality is working for and meant to benefit the internet and the economy broadly and not only the broadband industry. It means that commission ought to consider the impact the regulations have on consumers and businesses. The Commission has a particular responsibility to give protection to people with few or no choices. It means as most of the Americans have access to just one or two companies for residential service and just four big operators for wireless.
Mr. Pai has presented another argument that Wheeler rules are revoked, some safeguards will remain. An example has been taken that some broadband companies would refrain from blocking or slowing the content of competitors. Still, he hasn’t ensured that how he would ensure that. FCC is considering using voluntary commitments from the industry. Officials of Federal Trade Commission would ensure power to fine or sure companies that make pledges and then fail to uphold them.
It is not feasible to believe that voluntary standards would be strong enough. It also makes obligation on individuals and small businesses to complain to regulators and request investigations. Now, under Mr. Pai’s proposal broadband companies would probably use their gate keeping position to give them a supporting position.
BOARD, T. E. (2017). F.C.C. Invokes Internet Freedom While Trying to Kill It. The New York Times.