The rhetoric of network neutrality

Caitlan R Spronk, Purdue University

Abstract

This thesis examines the network neutrality debate from a rhetorical perspective. A debate over whether there should be government regulation to enforce network neutrality on the Internet has become complex and often contentious, and yet the general public is largely unaware of the issue, which has the potential to significantly affect many Americans. The network neutrality debate is of interest to rhetoric and composition scholars because of the implications it could have for our lives as teachers, researchers, and citizens. Stakeholders attempt to influence public opinion and policy through a variety of document types, of which I consider four: advocacy websites, comments to the FCC, policy statements, and weblogs. In a third chapter, I examine a fifth type of document, a speech made by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, and explore how Genachowski’s use of metaphor attempts to shape the debate by using metaphors of freedom and openness, and how other stakeholders’ use of metaphor responds to that high-stakes document. I find that in general, stakeholders make more detailed and combative arguments in less public documents such as comments to the FCC. Opponents to network neutrality are especially likely to make positive statements in more public documents, reserving aggressive arguments for less public documents. Proponents often employ negative attacks in more public documents. Because stakeholders in the network neutrality debate construct different pictures of what the future is and should be, different arguments, if successful, will lead to different future Internets. Some of those future networks will most likely be more amenable to our work than others, and I suggest that a better understanding of the types of arguments made by stakeholders allows scholars and citizens to better react to and engage with the debate.

Degree

M.A.

Advisors

Sullivan, Purdue University.

Subject Area

Rhetoric|Mass communications

COinS