Online commentary 801
Uyanga Zodov Bazaa (2007-09-17)
However in the conclusion, Barbara proposed to consider both sides’ arguments, but most part of her paper discusses the flaws, which exist only in opponents’ arguments.
She has done good analyses on Network Neutrality opponents’ arguments based on the Ross and Cobb’s agenda denial strategy along a cost continuum design. First, what does “cost continuum” strategy have to do with her analyses? Second, proponents could use those strategies if they continue pushing the issue to bring in agenda setting.
One of the proponents (Wu 2006) wrote this “How would you feel if I-95 announced an exclusive deal with GM to provide special “rush-hour” lane for GM cars only? And if highways really did choose favorite brands, you might buy a Pontiac instead of a Toyota to get the rush hour lane, not because of Pontiac is actually a good car. As a result, nature of competition among carmakers would change. Rather than try to make the best product, they would battle to make deals with highways. That’s what would happen if discrimination reigned on the Internet.” Is not it medium cost strategy of problem definition, which was presented by pros, too?
Another NN proponent (Obama 2006) said, “Allowing the Bell and cable companies to act as gatekeepers with control over Internet access would make the Internet like cable... If there were four or more competitive providers of broadband service to every home, then cable and telephone companies would not be able to create a bidding war for access to the high speed lanes.” Could this medium cost strategy – Attack group legitimacy that was being used by proponents, too?
If we analyze the proponents arguments made after opponents first arguments, most probably the agenda – denial strategy could be turned into agenda setting strategy too, or it could be described this way - proponents could use the same strategy as opponents do. So, if both sides have similar rules to play the game and same tools, whom do decision makers believe in?
“More than 99 percent of households get their broadband services from either cable or a telephone company,” (Obama 2006) quoted to make the NN issue belonged to the mass. It could be the most powerful strategy to win over decision makers’ attention and bring the issue on agenda setting table. “Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed,” said Abraham Lincoln, but at the same time public can easily misled by leading opinion and we have to remember that public is short sighted, too.
Author did not provide all the arguments of the NN opponents, but did what she is familiar with. Was it because of other arguments brought by opponents did not meet the agenda denial strategy of Ross and Cobb or the arguments have had certain value to be true or right? “There are always limited capacity and limited resources; it applies it with the Internet. To use the limited resource with high efficiency, we need providers who decide the one who paid higher would get the better service,” one could say. Then, what kind of strategy could it be called?
In the end, whether the agendas advocated by opponents or proponents set or denied, the most important thing which should be brought into our consideration is the policy makers are the players who have its own interest in this agenda setting and public policy making process, too.
Obama., Barack. 2006. Network Neutrality [Online] http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608-network_neutral/print.php
Wu., Tim. 2006. Why You Should Care About Network Neutrality [Online] http://slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2140850
