Greetings,

I am have difficulty translating my argument into Predicate Logic. Please help me.

Premises:

1) Net neutrality limits the number and type of perspectives accessible and relegates all competitors to the fringe.

2) Pushing Internet providers into the content business is destructive to all involved.

3) Users are limited to the content approved by their provider, assuming they can afford it. Content providers and application developers are returned to the fringe, their success determined entirely by the earnings they present to the ISP.

Competition in the Internet service market is severely hampered, limited not by entry costs or management difficulties, but by a system of content partnerships and a conflation of interests. Most confusingly, limited options and higher costs will inevitably lead to lower usage and slowed growth, bad results for those in the business of facilitating Internet access. If “Carriers make money only by carrying more traffic” it's confusing that they would seek to limit their customers' ability to use their product (Thierer 3). The legal decisions to label Internet service providers as information services enables a constriction of choice, at every level of this complex system, that defies the nature of the network and will recreate the shortcomings of centralized, restrictive media channels.

Conclusions:

We can conclude that that companies should be allowed to do whatever they wish to do with their own networks. This is not a fair and justified argument since internet providers do not have the right to discriminate between the amount of data which is accessible to the user and which is not. The basics of the Internet were laid down to share anything the user wishes to share. In the same fashion telephone networks don’t have the right to discriminate to decide whom you can call. Internet should be free and ISP should not predefine what sites should be accessible to the users.