Should New York Times Editorial Board Disagree With The New Rules?

The New York Times’ Editorial Board push their influence on their readers with their recent support of the Federal Communications Commission’s (F.C.C.) proposed rules and regulations for internet providers and consumers. The editorial board seek to persuade their readers in believing the new rules are beneficial for the consumers by establishing their credibility, appealing to the reader’s emotions, and using history to their advantage. They publish their opinion in support as the expected approval date approaches. The authors slowly build their credibility by presenting the views of those that disagree with the new rules, and counter-argues by explaining what the new rules do. The opposition to the new rules, major companies in the telecommunications industry, stress that the new rules will suppress their desire to invest in new high-speed networks. Industry giants like Google, and Verizon are quoted they would not be deterred from investing in, or slowing down the development of

In the late 60’s, a series of decisions were made to allow internet service to be delivered over telephone lines, and sold by companies like America Online (AOL). The spread of the internet and wide spread adaptation into our daily lives can be attributed to the FCC when they broke up monopolistic practices by allowing the consumer to purchase their personal equipment to use existing service lines, much to the dismay of AT&T. The authors also point out that this “could have only happened with the kind of common carrier rules [The FCC’s Chairman] Mr. Wheeler is now proposing for broadband.” The board implies that their current proposal is better than last year’s struck-down proposal. You could argue that they have had time to learn what will be accepted or passed, not what is beneficial for consumers and providers alike. The board wants their audience to believe the new rules are more refined therefore, more