Logical Forms

Logical Forms Logical Forms Farhad Manjoo wrote the article, Did Regulators Break the Internet of Did They Save It? Yes, in the International New York Times in the wake of Federal Communications Commission’s proposal for network neutrality. The article, written on May 16, 2014, was a reaction to the attempt by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate internet openness in the United States. Manjoo’s argument is that FCC’s proposal is not a good solution to the problem of maintaining internet openness. The author reckons that the proposal is legal and technical, and the public will not have objective and meaningful input on how best to maintain internet openness. Manjoo also thinks that the proposal is contradictory in its idea that it is possible to prohibit big internet service providers from prioritizing their service to their affiliates and maintain internet openness at the same time. He is cynical to the efficacy of FCC’s proposal and is almost sure it will not deliver on what it promises (Majoo, 2014).
According to this article, the attempt by the FCC is not important and it is set for confusion. This is evident in the article’s argument that the commission’s proposal is trying to safeguard the openness of the internet but the internet has always been open. There is an underlying implication that the attempt is therefore futile and it will do more harm than good. The article presents FCC’s proposal as confusing by asserting that it is presenting its proposal as leading to a win-win situation. The article implies that it will not be possible for the commission’s proposal to please both sides. The evidence that the article provides to support its claim that the proposal is futile is quite on point because since its inception, the Internet has always operated on an open-for-all basis. That notwithstanding, this evidence fails to factor in the incidences and possibility of big internet providers dealing unfairly and in a way that can cripple this openness. The same cannot be said about the article’s criticism of the move by the commission to invite the public to help decide on the best framework for its proposal (Majoo, 2014).
The article presents FCC’s invitation for public comment on its proposal as unproductive. To criticize this move appropriately, the article uses the analogy of the Interior Department requesting for public opinion on how to run the Hoover Dam. The other warrant that the article provides to indicate the unproductiveness of this move is to parallel the ease of consumers telling their preference for internet speed with the difficulty of consumers knowing the dynamics involved in regulating internet openness. This evidence is quite true because internet openness involves technical and policy issues for which the consumers may not have a good grip. However, this evidence downplays the importance of inviting public comments in the policy making process. This enhances public ownership of the final policy and this makes it easy to implement such a policy. Manjoo’s article has strengths and weaknesses (Majoo, 2014).
In conclusion, the evidence that the article provides are appropriate and they enhance its argument form. The syntax used in this article enhances the delivery if its subject matter. For example, the sentence, “The FCC characterizes this rule as a “rebuttable presumption,”….”taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it and proves otherwise,” brings out the article’s cynicism to the promise of the commission to responsibly regulate internet openness ((Majoo, 2014 p. 3). A weakness with the logical form of this article is its manifest implication that the commission’s proposal is unimportant. The very openness of the internet warrants government and other responsible authorities to adopt measures that anticipate and counter unfair use of the Internet.
Reference
Manjoo, Farhad. (2014). Did Regulators Break the Internet or Did They Save It? Yes. International New York Times, May 16, 2014.