The work below constitutes my prospectus for Composition 2. The document was written after approximately a week of precursory research. As you will see, I employed my prospectus as a sort of an archive, employing it to document the research that I have, how the sources interact, and where I should proceed next. In truth, the assignment consisted of this prospectus and a preliminary annotated bibliography. I have not uploaded this bibliography as a separate section; however, you may download the file containing both of these works here.

For this second prospectus, I began where my first composition ended—the topic of Internet regulation. After composition 1, I did some precursory, broad research just by typing "Internet regulation" in search engines alone. In my preliminary research, I stumbled upon the topic of network neutrality. Consequently, the statement of prospective claims below details another week of research and my attempts at trying to piece together the big picture (of network neutrality and its debate).

In composition 1, I explored the implications of absolutism upon free speech; furthermore, an important question was imposed, “Should speech over the Internet be regulated?” For me, the focus of my first composition primarily revolved around whether speech is absolute—on the Internet or regardless. However, for composition 2 perhaps the concept to be addressed is the issue of regulation. In light of this, I believe the aforementioned question still holds significant relevance for composition 2. As mentioned in the first composition, Sunstein emphatically believes the answer to be “Yes,” in that the Internet should be regulated. It is a question of how rather than if. In Republic 2.0, Sunstein proposes various different policies that may or may not work, one of which includes voluntary, self-governance. However, before I can elaborate upon his idea, the encompassing issue must be identified.

Through conducting my research, I am under the impression that the overlying issue of Internet regulation involves the Federal Communications Commission’s order of “network neutrality.” The FCC believes that the “Internet has thrived because of its freedom and openness.” As a result, the commission proclaimed three basic rules that mainly prohibit broadband providers from controlling the Internet; these three rules are as follows: Internet service providers cannot block legal sites, apps, services, or devices; they must disclose management practices; and they may not unreasonably discriminate among the lawful sites they transmit data to. Thus, to me, it appears as if there are two potential sides to advocate. The question is whether to advocate for governmental regulation, in the form of the FCC’s network neutrality, or rather self-regulation, through leaders in the technological forefront, e.g. Google and Verizon.

As stated before, Sunstein proposed self-governance, a viewpoint derived in the aspiration that, together, may promote “moral commitments” of broadcasters “without intruding law into the domain of speech regulation.” Likewise, Google and Verizon have issued a joint statement to the FCC outlining shared beliefs between the two companies. Most important is the agreement in that “self-governance has been the hallmark of the growth and success of the Internet.” Two addition contributors to the discussion are Thomas Hazlett and Joshua Wright, both professors of law at the George Mason University. The duo assesses network neutrality in a legislative and economic perspective and asserts that the FCC’s “fair discrimination” policy is unfeasible. Even prior to regulatory attention from the government, the Internet has always had an entanglement of preferential treatment, i.e. certain ISPs will conduct special business with certain websites. In this regard, Hazlett, Wright, Sunstein, Google, and Verizon may be discerned to be on one side of the net neutrality spectrum. However, this notion of preferential treatment raises concerns over Sunstein’s ideals of self-governance.

Given few regulatory obstacles, broadband providers have and probably will conduct preferential deals in aim of profits—they are an industry. Robert Cringely of the Public Broadcasting Service elucidates a shocking truth regarding the Internet as we know it. He reports that the potential of high speed Internet has always been there; however, broadband providers, seemingly as a collective, chose not to upgrade their systems while simultaneous benefiting from low regulation and tax credits. In some cases, mergers even produced poorer service or “lost” equipment and yet through loopholes, the companies would be profiting. Thus, in my opinion, Sunstein’s optimistic prospects of self-governance are rather dangerous. Who is there to stop these broadband providers from acting as a collective and reaping corporate benefits, at the expense of the consumer?

And here lies the dilemma in my progress. I have so forth illustrated the knowledge I have attained and the interactions between sources and scholars; however, I lack insight from those on the other side of the spectrum—opposite to the likes of Sunstein or Google and Verizon—those who welcome network neutrality. In my opinion, this lack of knowledge prohibits me from accurately making a claim and ultimately choosing a side to advocate. I conclude my statement of prospective claims by declaring my future goals: to further research and expand my knowledge of network neutrality, preferably through proponents of the FCC order, and to consequently confidently choose a side to advocate.