Be It Resolved That The Goverment Should Nationalize the Internet.

1) First, Pro suggests that the government should buy out the companies of AT&T and Comcast. What Pro is essentially suggesting is that the tax payers should pay money to change the new provider that they're paying to. This is illogical, as the country is currently in an economic crisis. With Pro's plan, all tax payers are contributing a large chunk of money to buy a part of an industry to which they may not necessarily subscribe, i.e. internet. Not everybody chooses to utilize the internet as Pro himself pointed out, so it would be unfair to make these people pay for it. Taxes are supposed to be kept to a minimum; having the internet is not a right, and as such, the government has no incentive to try and lower costs of the internet. That is for the market to work out on its own. To combat the current high prices of internet, a new company could emerge with lower prices, attract a lot of customers, and in the end prove to be a viable competitor or perhaps even surpass the current alleged oligopoly. That's what Wal-Mart did :) 2) Pro begins his argument by fear-mongering in claiming that technology, our national freedom and even our children are at risk under the current system. First, while technology is important, the internet is not a right like I've said. Additionally, citizens have access to the internet for free at libraries and other public buildings. Moreover, there are internet cafes, free internet for children at schools, etc. Second, we still have national dialog the same as we did (and got by) before the publicity of the internet. We have these things called books, letters, memos, magazines, newspapers, etc. You know - these things that were around and helpful at sparking the French Revolution, for example. Finally, our children are not at risk - this is a blatant exaggeration. 3) Regarding an internet subscription model, that won't happen thanks to market competition. As soon as one company implements that requirement, people will flock membership to the one that doesn't. Additionally, people can always boycott purchasing these internet plans. Instead, they can access the free internet I've mentioned, or - dare I say it - go without their beloved internet for a little while and prove that just as we don't necessarily have the right to internet, we don't have an obligation to pay for it either. This will cost said companies an exorbitant amount of money if everyone complies, and they will revoke the policy. If people don't comply, it will be our tough luck, because in a capitalistic and democratic society, these companies absolutely have the right to charge us for internet use. Additionally, it should be noted that we already pay a fee to use the internet (mine's about 30 bucks a month), so perhaps this new policy might even SAVE people money. For instance, if they charge 2 bucks per site, and the only sites I frequent from my home are DDO, CNN and Google, then I'd be paying $6 per month for internet instead of 30. I s'pose it depends how these charges are structured though; a policy that Pro nor myself know nothing about at this time. However, keep in mind that even if AT&T or Comcast don't run their policy like that, other new competitors can. 4) Next Pro insists that people must demand that our freedom shall be protected, and a government-run 'public option' must be introduced. First, again, our freedoms are not being threatened; this is a case of appeal to fear/emotion fallacies. Anyway, Pro does not provide an adequate argument as to why a public option would be most beneficial. Here are his claims: A -- A travesty of American society is that only 63% of households have high-speed internet. Okay, slavery was a travesty. The Holocaust was a travesty. Having just 63% of U.S. households have high-speed internet is NOT a travesty. Moreover, just because France downloads and uploads at higher speeds is hardly a decent argument for increasing the ever-growing bureaucracy of the U.S. government. If I'm downloading the same music as someone in France and it takes them 2 minutes and me 10 minutes, it's certainly not a gigantic infringement upon my rights or danger to my freedom. B -- By establishing a large competitor to every other ISP in America, instant pressure is put on them to improve services and lower the needlessly high prices. I've already detailed how competition in this country works, and why the government paying for Pro's suggested idea is wrong. Further, these companies should already have said incentive thanks to competition. C -- Because the government has a vested interest in the safety of the internet users, it will give the government more access to what we do on the internet. What?! The constitution implies a right to privacy, and The Privacy Act of 1974 prevents the unauthorized disclosure of personal information held by the government. Essentially I disagree with Pro - the government absolutely would become a digital Big Brother.