I could use some help getting started, Professor Hodges. I know that I want to talk about Net Neutrality and it’s benefits. I know what I want to talk about but I’m not sure how I should be wording things and I feel I might be overlapping my reasoning for these. I’m not sure if overlapping my reasons would be beneficial since they lead in to my next cause or if it overlaps to the point where I’m repeating myself.
One thing I want to talk about is that with Net Neutrality, we have the ability to access websites on our time without internet providers intervening. It allows little companies to advertise on the internet since they don’t have to pay extra to be on the front page, they just have to wait for the ad on pop up on our devices. Without Net Neutrality, an internet provider like youmail over gmail, we would have to pay extra just to access gmail since our provider doesn’t like them.
Another thing is that without Net Neutrality, they could throttle your internet speed to the point where things aren’t accessible. If we enjoy something that our internet provider doesn’t, they would charge us more for it. They would also charge those companies that they don’t like more and if those companies refuse to pay then it wouldn’t be accessible. Companies such as Netflix that has become such a popular thing could pay. Internet providers would use this to their advantage since they know their users enjoy Netflix and would do anything to watch it, even if that means higher prices.
Counterintuitive 
Hey, D2F. I’ll be happy to do what I can.
I don’t understand the question in your first paragraph out of context. I’m unclear whether you mean “My Definition Argument keeps bleeding into my Causal Argument,” or perhaps, “I’m not quite sure what Net Neutrality actually means, so my causes and effects are hopelessly tangled.” Both seem possible.
At the heart of the problem is your difficulty articulating how Net Neutrality works. Here, Definition Arguments that describe a behavior often do overlap with Causal Arguments. Describing the phenomenon means describing the reasons for the behavior and the consequences. Until you’ve done both, your readers won’t be able to follow your arguments.
So, what is it, and how does it work? You appear to be analyzing only the Effects without actually naming the causes.
Are internet service providers in competition with one another? Do they compete in closed geographical areas for customers who can choose one over another? If so, are they seeking a business advantage in their handling of content providers like Netflix? How do they benefit from throttling the speed of content? Why would they want their customers to experience difficulty accessing content? What is the nature of their business relationship with the content providers? Do they buy the content and pass it along to their own subscribers for a fee? What are the consequences of giving ISP customers easier access to some services than to others? Is there one kind of throttling in play here, or more than one? For example, can the ISP restrict the speed with which all subscribers access one content-provider’s material? For another, can the ISP restrict the speed with which one subscriber accesses all material? If more than one throttle is applied, the profit dynamics get more complex.
For now, your readers are not sufficiently informed to sort through the causal implications of relationships they don’t understand. You’ll be a much more persuasive guide (waiter) if you use your privileged position as the subject matter expert (you know what’s in the kitchen and can describe the specials) to help your readers through the menu. So far, we don’t know if this is an a la carte restaurant or an all-you-can-eat buffet. We need to know the rules of how we order, how things are priced, and how the restaurant deals with its suppliers.
This is meant to be a conversation, D2F. Your responses are appreciated.
LikeLike
I apologize for such a late response. I agree with you, I think my problem after reading over everything is that I need to figure out what Net Neutrality means. I think my problem is that like you said I’m focusing too much on the effects and not enough of the causes. But my question is what causes should I be looking at? Also I’m not sure what you mean by the last paragraph, do you want me to be a “waiter” or go towards the “buffet”? Or are you saying I’m being to open and need to make a better “guide” to help my readers through the essay (menu)?
LikeLike
I would think Net Neutrality is the natural situation that results when all content from every provider goes into a pool and is distributed without prejudice. Maybe that needs more examination, but most certainly you’ll need to describe how Net Neutrality is VIOLATED by internet service providers who DON’T treat all content or all content-creators equally. The causes for that are almost certainly economic.
What I mean by comparing you to the waiter is to remind you that only you can be on both sides of the transaction. You know the subject matter (what’s in the kitchen), and deliver it to the readers. You don’t have to tell them every ingredient, or describe every dish. Etc.
LikeLike
So what I should do is talk about what makes Net Neutrality good but don’t get too far into detail because would be annoying/boring for the reader? So I should talk about for example what you just said about not treating all content creators equal but don’t go to far into to the point of the reader being confused.
LikeLike
Asking “should do” questions is a little bit like asking your swimming coach what stroke you enjoy the most. It’s irrelevant to the coach’s job to advise you on what you like. If he knows you well, he might be able to tell you which stroke matches your particular physical ability. But once you select a stroke, his job begins in earnest, watching how you perform, suggesting different practices, pointing out problems of form and technique. All that happens once you’re in the water and he can observe whether you sink or swim.
If you’re advocating FOR Net Neutrality 100%, you’ll want to spend your small budget of words detailing its advantages. A small portion of your essay will be devoted to refuting the primary disadvantages, but once you’ve dispatched them, you’ll persuade your readers by describing the obvious and plentiful benefits.
Here’s the thing though. Once you start doing actual research to define Net Neutrality carefully, you may discover it’s not what you thought it was at all. You may even change your mind about whether it’s:
1. The best condition for all internet users
2. Fair to Internet Service providers
3. Always an advantage to content providers
4. A condition that should be guaranteed by legislation
5. Ever truly achievable
Whichever of these several attitudes—or their opposites, or compromises between them—you decide are the ideal situation, you’ll craft your Definition/Categorical argument to promote them. That’s when you’ll discover that the Definition essay is truly an ARGUMENT.
No one will be annoyed or bored if you approach your subject matter with interest and convey what you’ve learned in vivid language, with fascinating illustrations.
I thought I might be able to find an introductory text to help you understand Net Neutrality in its most straightforward terms (without all the nuances of constituents arguing their cases), so I did a Google Scholar search for “Net Neutrality 101.”
The first hit (.001) seconds later, was an article titled “Net Neutrality 101.”
I’ve linked to it. You’re welcome. Now let me know when you can describe the situation to me and how much of it you think is crucial to protect. Put this post back into the Feedback Please category when you’re ready. (Don’t wait too long; you need a Rebuttal Argument shortly.)
LikeLike