Net Neutrality: Take Me or Leave Me Baby

In a recent critique on FoxNews.com about net neutrality, political commentator Drew Johnson stood up on the soapbox to argue that the Federal Communication Commission's repeal of net neutrality should not be overturned. Net Neutrality refers to the concept that internet providers should provide the same service to the consumer regardless of platform or location. This means that you, the consumer reading this, would experience no intentional slow down in your browser. Aimed towards a conservative middle-class audience, Johnson doesn't stress over his elocution and instead opts for loose logos.

The first argument Johnson makes in defense of the repeal of Net Neutrality by the FCC is that it removes  "Depression-era regulations". What Johnson is mentioning here is the Title II part of the Communications Act of 1934 which is the part of the law that gives the FCC agency authority over common carriers providing interstate or foreign communications services. In 2015, the Title II regulations were reinstated by the Obama administration which Johnson also references, citing it as a disaster for private investors in broadband infrastructure. He concludes "The rules make no sense for governing a modern, globally connected broadband industry" making the claim that there is no evidence that internet providers have prevented access to content.

In the second half of the article, Johnson decries lawmakers attempts to overturn the repeal using the Congressional Review Act established in 1996. This act enables Congress to repeal the decision after it is published in the Federal Register by way of a majority vote from each chamber of Congress. Johnson criticizes this method saying "A CRA repeal would only perpetuate the endless regulatory back-and-forth over current internet rules".

Johnson concludes with his thesis "Rather than “Chicken Little” rhetoric and legislative loopholes, we need commonsense congressional action that can permanently preserve a free and open internet and spark renewed investment that brings high-speed access to more Americans". Johnson lays down a framework that supports a pathos heavy argument but struggles when it comes to supporting it with logos. Lack of addressing the counterargument or addressing the corporations who benefit from the ruling leave this critique open to skepticism.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/03/04/activists-are-wrong-about-how-to-protect-open-internet.html