Most of us probably believe we have absolute freedom when it comes to what we view on the internet. However, Barbara van Schewick points out in her article ‘Network Neutrality
Nuances’, that we only have access to bits and pieces of the internet (Schewick, 2009). What we are able to view is all decided upon by our ISP. Schewick states that ISPs select what we view in order to maximize profits, to ban content which they consider to be inappropriate, or to keep track of all signals on their network (Schewick, 2009). She does an excellent job of explaining why this is wrong by bringing forth real world examples, using thought-provoking literary devices, as well as by connecting with the reader (Schewick, 2009).
Throughout this entire article, …show more content…
She starts by quoting Lawrence Lessig to show that network neutrality rules must be put forth in order to contain ISPs from constricting internet access to their customers (Schewick,
2009). ISPs do not only block internet access, but they also limit the speed at which some webpages run (Schewick, 2009). Schewick goes on to mention how some ISPs may slow down web sites; which may interfere with partnerships that certain ISP has with other companies
(Schewick, 2009). The motivation for this is entirely profit driven. Since that particular webpage is slowed down, users would opt for the ISPs alternative. This would in turn create more traffic to that site and increase revenue for the ISP. Certain ISPs also manipulate text which the user sees due to it not coinciding with their policies (Schewick, 2009). Schewick provides an example from 2007 when AT&T did the exact same thing due to the fact that then president, George W.
Bush was insulted (Schewick, 2009). By showing us examples straight out of the real world,
Schewick does an extraordinary job reinforcing her point as to why network neutrality rules must be enforced.
By using an abundant amount of literary devices, Schewick entices the reader …show more content…
This attracts the reader to start the article in the first place. She then continually uses rhetorical questions throughout the entire article to further enforce her point. She tries to get you thinking about how much freedom you actually have and whether or not you should even care if ISPs are controlling the content which you have access to (Schewick, 2009). Schewick also uses a simile by Tim
Wu to compare the internet to selling a painting (Schewick, 2009). She states that getting rid of the innovators of the internet, the frame, will leave nothing to hold the internet, the painting
(Schewick, 2009). This interesting simile highlights how ISPs are only hurting themselves in the end. Due to all of the literary devices used, Schewick keeps the reader enticed long enough in order to deliver all of her points.
An excellent way in which Schewick delivers her points is by connecting with the audience. She mentions how some ISPs will block applications such as BitTorrent which would hinder the ability for some individuals to properly subsidize the internet (Schewick, 2009). This would help connect many of the readers to the network neutrality issues. Many users who
Nuances’, that we only have access to bits and pieces of the internet (Schewick, 2009). What we are able to view is all decided upon by our ISP. Schewick states that ISPs select what we view in order to maximize profits, to ban content which they consider to be inappropriate, or to keep track of all signals on their network (Schewick, 2009). She does an excellent job of explaining why this is wrong by bringing forth real world examples, using thought-provoking literary devices, as well as by connecting with the reader (Schewick, 2009).
Throughout this entire article, …show more content…
She starts by quoting Lawrence Lessig to show that network neutrality rules must be put forth in order to contain ISPs from constricting internet access to their customers (Schewick,
2009). ISPs do not only block internet access, but they also limit the speed at which some webpages run (Schewick, 2009). Schewick goes on to mention how some ISPs may slow down web sites; which may interfere with partnerships that certain ISP has with other companies
(Schewick, 2009). The motivation for this is entirely profit driven. Since that particular webpage is slowed down, users would opt for the ISPs alternative. This would in turn create more traffic to that site and increase revenue for the ISP. Certain ISPs also manipulate text which the user sees due to it not coinciding with their policies (Schewick, 2009). Schewick provides an example from 2007 when AT&T did the exact same thing due to the fact that then president, George W.
Bush was insulted (Schewick, 2009). By showing us examples straight out of the real world,
Schewick does an extraordinary job reinforcing her point as to why network neutrality rules must be enforced.
By using an abundant amount of literary devices, Schewick entices the reader …show more content…
This attracts the reader to start the article in the first place. She then continually uses rhetorical questions throughout the entire article to further enforce her point. She tries to get you thinking about how much freedom you actually have and whether or not you should even care if ISPs are controlling the content which you have access to (Schewick, 2009). Schewick also uses a simile by Tim
Wu to compare the internet to selling a painting (Schewick, 2009). She states that getting rid of the innovators of the internet, the frame, will leave nothing to hold the internet, the painting
(Schewick, 2009). This interesting simile highlights how ISPs are only hurting themselves in the end. Due to all of the literary devices used, Schewick keeps the reader enticed long enough in order to deliver all of her points.
An excellent way in which Schewick delivers her points is by connecting with the audience. She mentions how some ISPs will block applications such as BitTorrent which would hinder the ability for some individuals to properly subsidize the internet (Schewick, 2009). This would help connect many of the readers to the network neutrality issues. Many users who