Folkedahl 1

Tyler Folkedahl
Com Arts 100, Section 25
Persuasive Speech: This is for Everyone
Initial Preparation Outline
March 3, 2014
Speech Run Time: 9 minutes
Specific Purpose: To persuade my audience that the government should enact laws banning any
limitations on net neutrality.

Central Idea: The internet was founded on a basis of free access for all, and recently this
foundation has been called into question with political and commercial motives; the government
should enact laws to prevent limitations on net neutrality.

Organizational Method: Problem Solution

Introduction
I. If you were to point to one person as the inventor of the world wide web, it would be
Tim Berners-Lee.
a. When Tim conceived the web, he intended it to be a platform with open access for
all.
i. This idea can be encapsulated in a tweet that Tim sent out in 2012: This is
for everyone.
b. Sadly, as of late, this idea has been called into question, with internet service
providers pushing the boundaries with what the can and cannot limit.
i. I use the internet every day, and Ive done plenty of research on net
neutrality in preparation for this speech.
Folkedahl 2

ii. Today, well take a look at the reason these limitations can be problematic
and their causes, and some steps we can take to prevent and further
negative action.
Body 1
I. As previously stated, the internet was founded on the principle of free and equal
access for all.
a. Jan Kraemer, a researcher of communication technology at Karlsruhe Institute of
Technology sums up this idea of net neutrality in his October 24, 2013 article
entitled Net Neutrality: A Progress Report.
b. He says that essentially, net neutrality establishes that all information sent to the
network should be treated equally, and that no company can exercise control over
access to this information (Kraemer).
i. However, there are some companies that are attempting to do away with
this principle.
c. Everyone accesses the internet through an Internet Service Provider, or ISP.
i. Internet Service Providers are companies like AT&T and Charter
Communications.
ii. You have the device, such as, your phone or computer, and they do all the
behind-the-scenes dirty work to make sure you can access the internet.
d. ISPs have begun to toy with the idea of establishing a tiered payment system and
charging companies to allow internet users to access their content at an equal rate.
Folkedahl 3

i. Bill Moyers, former White House Press Secretary and Schumann Center
for Media and Democracy president, breaks down this issue in his Moyers
on America report on net neutrality.
i. He states that things like streaming video and music are more
taxing and space-consuming than simple web browsing, and
therefore ISPs argue that they should be able to charge providers
of these services to keep up with the cost.
ii. This isnt a problem for companies like Netflix, who make huge
amounts of money and can afford to pay these fees.
a. However, it could be detrimental to the success of smaller,
local businesses without this large income (Moyers).
ii. The main argument that these ISPs provide as to why they should be
allowed to enact these practices is that if a user wants to access this
content, they can simply turn to a different ISP that supplies these services
to them at the rate they want.
i. However, in many rural areas in America, citizens have much
more limited options for Internet Service Providers.
ii. According to BroadBandMap.govs map of service providers in
your area, my hometown of East Grand Forks, Minnesota has only
3 internet service providers excluding mobile providers, only one
of which boasts a speed above 25mbps (BroadBandMap.gov).
a. This already severely limits peoples access to ISPs who
can efficiently provide content to them.
Folkedahl 4

b. If we tag on the added difficulty of trying to find a service
provider that will allow us to fairly access all of the content
we want, the odds of finding an ISP that fits our needs
become slim to none.
iii. On top of this, ISPs also have the potential to limit what their users have
access to on the foundation of political biases.
iv. Say the AT&T president decides that he doesnt agree with the Affordable
Healthcare act.
v. He could then decide to block any information online pertaining to the act
to all users of AT&T internet service.
i. This limitation could also be a severe disadvantage to students who
need access to both sides of an argument for research and studies.
II. This idea of limiting access to certain information goes against the internets
foundational ideal of free and equal access for all.
a. The reason the internet has been able to grow to become so large and successful is
because of this open access.
b. Think of two websites that have become household names; YouTube and
Facebook.
i. Both of these websites started out as very small startups that evolved into
billion-dollar enterprises.
ii. Had they been required to put up large fees to make sure that all users
could efficiently and fairly access their content, they may not have been
Folkedahl 5

able to spread as widely as they have today, and could have possibly never
made it off the ground.
Body 2
I. The driving force behind this limitation of the internet is capitalism.
a. Im not going to stand up here and tell you that capitalism is evil and that we
should drop everything and shift to a socialist nation, but with the internet, the
best approach is a hands on effort to keep things hands off.
b. David Pogue, technology analyst for such publications as Yahoo Tech and The
New York Times outlines the pros and cons of net neutrality in his April 2014
Article published in Scientific American entitled The Great Net Debate.
i. As previously stated, one of the major arguments for those against net
neutrality in this article is that certain sites, such as Netflix and YouTube,
demand the transmission of massive amounts of data in extremely short
periods of time, forcing the service providers to work twice as hard in half
as much time.
1. On top of that, users are illegally downloading terrabytes worth of
video games, movies, and television shows from websites like
pirate bay.
2. ISPs argue that they should be able to charge these companies to
be able to complete such demanding tasks on their networks.
3. However, this would allow these megalith companies to front the
bill for higher speeds and better connectivity, leaving smaller
Folkedahl 6

companies in the dust with no way to pay the mounting fees to
keep their content ready and available (Pogue).
II. As previously mentioned, net neutrality is not just an economic issue; much of the
debate is also deeply entrenched in political warfare.
a. On January 31, 2014, Johannes M. Bauer, professor of Telecommunication,
Information Studies, and Media at Michigan State University detailed many of the
political issues that have become intertwined with the debate surrounding net
neutrality in his Information Society article entitled Reconciling Political and
Econonmic Goals in the Net Neutrality Debate.
i. The main debate concerns how much of a hand people believe the
government should be allowed to have in regulating the internet.
1. Those opposed to net neutrality argue that allowing too much
government interference would stifle growth, and we should
therefore assume a more neutral stance and allow market
competition to unfold naturally.
2. On the opposing side, promoters of neutrality realize that if we
want the net to remain equal and free for all, there has to be
government regulation.
a. If left unchecked, service providers have close to no
deterrents to blocking content providers that refuse to pay
fees or produce content that aligns with their viewpoint
(Bauer).
Folkedahl 7

ii. If service providers have the ability to regulate content, they have the
ability to regulate who has a voice.
iii. By shutting out voices they dont agree with, they are directly violating
freedom of speech.
Body #3
I. This may seem like a very muddled issue, but there truly is a simple solution.
a. The federal government must back laws that prohibit limitations on net neutrality.
b. This issue has come to the courts before in the Internet Freedom Preservation Act
of 2009, but sadly, it did not pass.
i. Ian Chant, technology writer with works published in Scientific American,
discusses the implications of the ruling in his February 15, 2014 Article
entitled Court Strikes down Net Neutrality.
1. He states that the striking down of net neutrality could be a critical
determinant of where the web is headed.
2. Without the support of the court, the citizens have no hope of truly
free and equal access to this amazing resource that has been
presented to them (Chant).
ii. Avia Rutkin, a reporter on the intersection of technology and biology for
New Scientist, has developed a possible plan to combat this issue.
1. In Net not free for all, an article published on the First of February
2014, she discusses the possibility of the FCC regulating the
internet as a common carrier.
Folkedahl 8

a. Common carriers are service providers, such as phone
companies, that are considered a public good and are
therefore heavily regulated and controlled.
b. Public goods are defined as something that cannot be
effectively withheld from from any individuals, and one
individuals use does not restrict the use of another.
c. Defining the web as a public good would eliminate all
debate surrounding net neutrality, as it would abolish the
possibility of an ISP to withhold internet access or restrict
usage.
Conclusion
I. The internet is an amazing resource, but if we arent careful, its value could be lost.
a. Today weve discussed why infringement on net neutrality is a problem, and how
the federal government can resolve this issue.
b. Think back to Tim Berners-Lee; his vision of this amazing landscape
encapsulated an idea of open access, and if we limit this, we lose the very
foundation of what the internet is.
c. So, next time youre at the library at 4am scrambling to finish your homework,
take a second to remember Tims message; this is for everyone.




Folkedahl 9

Works Cited

Bauer, Johannes M., and Jonathan A. Obar. "Reconciling Political And Economic Goals In The
Net Neutrality Debate."Information Society 30.1 (2014): 1-19. Academic Search Premier.
Web. 25 Mar. 2014.

Chant, Ian. "Court Strikes Down Net Neutrality." Library Journal 139.3 (2014): 12. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.

Krmer, Jan, Lukas Wiewiorra, and Christof Weinhardt. "Net Neutrality: A Progress
Report." Telecommunications Policy37.9 (2013): 794-813. Academic Search Premier.
Web. 25 Mar. 2014.

Moyers, Bill. "Net Neutrality." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.

"National Broadband Map." National Broadband Map. NTIA/FCC, n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2014.

Pogue, David. "The Great Net Debate." Scientific American 310.4 (2014): 36. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.