The USFG should reject Net Neutrality.

I find myself over the character limit, and must pick and choose my arguments (I WILL address all dropped arguments):Freedom of SpeechWith regards to the FCC not supporting freedom of speech:b) Opposition argues that “net neutrality laws do not give the government more power to control what is available to us on the Internet” because the FCC isn’t trying to regulate the internet itself, only the providers. This is patently false; we can look to historical examples of content-based regulation of TV and radio allowed by the Supreme Court, which stated that the FCC could restrain radio and TV broadcasters on a content-neutral basis [1]. However, the FCC was then allowed the discretion of deciding what was ‘content-neutral.’ Through this open interpretation, the FCC was able to fine or even revoke the licenses of radio and TV stations it felt were not ‘fair and balanced,’ or if the station aired profanity, hate speech or other offenses [2,3]. In regulating the way that telecommunication industries operate their Internet services through current proposed net neutrality legislation, the FCC would be given oversight of every ISP in the nation. Opposition has not objected to the fact that passing said net neutrality legislation would give the FCC precedent for the authority to regulate the internet, which is what they want-an open door to becoming a governing authority over the internet.Further supporting the FCC’s lack of dedication to freedom of speech is their history of desiring to implement ‘fairness’ in all broadcasting of any sort. A major aspect of this is the Fairness Doctrine of 1949, which required holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced, thus greatly curbing the freedom of speech of all those subject to its control [4]. While eliminated in 1987, it turns out that the FCC never lost the desire to institute this ‘fairness’ of coverage in the media. Last May the FCC proposed a "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs" with the desire of determining the methods by which reporters, editors and station owners decide which stories to run [5]. The FCC stated that the goal of this study was to create guidelines to ‘aid media sources in what they could provide that is content-neutral and fair to the public.’ FCC Chairwoman Mignon Clyburn stated “The FCC has a duty to make sure that the industries it regulates serve the needs of the American public no matter where they live or what financial resources they have” [5]. All of this shows the interests of the FCC in regulating media and what they are able to provide and express (a clear regulation of freedom of speech), and net neutrality legislation will only further their ability to do so. In fact, the FCC is leaning on this legislation and pushing for its passage so heavily because their success in promoting ‘fairness’ and reinstituting the fairness doctrine relies so heavily on their ability to control ISPs. In fact, this wouldn’t be the first time in recent years that this doctrine has been brought to the table; in 2007 numerous Congressional Democrats, with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer at their head, aggressively pursued the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine [6].Additionally, to enforce such ‘fairness’ as the FCC has expressed a desire to institute, the FCC would need to create guidelines to regulate search results, ensuring that an equal number of liberal and conservative views load on the same page, moving some down and some up to make the overall page ‘neutral’ or ‘fair.’ This clearly results in a violation of freedom of speech of a search engine’s owners and those of the individual sites/articles, as their opinions and the manner in which they present them are being classified and reorganized in an arbitrary manner determined by the FCC.Further, the 5-member commission stated in their Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that two viable sources of such FCC authority over ISPs are Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Title II of the Communications Act [7]. Title II pertains to how the FCC grants broadcast licenses; the terms of licenses, renewal processes, content restrictions, etc. The FCC having control over the licenses of all ISPs means their actions are inherently controlled by the FCC. Further, ISPs would also become subject to the FCC’s Discrimination Clause [7], a part of Section 706 which states that “broadcasters must certify that they do not discriminate in the sale of advertising time” [7] or of content, meaning that the FCC retains the right to determine if the agency is unduly biased and, if so found, ‘correct’ it (by revoking licenses). Similarly, Title II states that common carriers (ISPs would fall under this in net neutrality laws) can’t “make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services,” which the FCC expanded in 2011 to include partisan viewpoints [3,7,8].Through all of this, it becomes quite clear that the FCC IS NOT engaged in the protection of freedom of speech. In fact, this factual evidence shows a very existent desire on the part of the FCC to obtain greater control of the internet for the purposes of normalizing opinion availability and creating a questionable ‘fairness’ which clearly infringes on freedom of speech much more than the status quo. Thus, in clear contradiction to Opposition’s assertion, the enforcement of net neutrality laws DOES in fact give the government via the FCC more power to control what is available to us on the internet, and that further the FCC clearly does seek to regulate the internet through the regulation of ISPs.With regard to Opposition’s objections to the example of China, point by point:b) To defend a perceived difference between the US and China, Opposition states “In China, actual website content is blocked”; the FCC will have the capacity to do the very same by revoking licenses of ISPs/information providers, by applying a fairness doctrine to govern what is acceptable, and through the discrimination clause to eliminate voices not expressing all viewpoints. This is remarkably similar, though certainly not as extreme, as the censorship seen in China.c) Opposition cites a difference in socio-political situations as the reasoning for their incompatibility; however, this does not change the fact that it is inherently the desire of those officials in government to stay in power that results in such censorship and closed internet practices, which is just as existent in the US as it is in China.Net Neutrality and Competitionb) BitTorrent is a growing source of legitimate content sharing, but my point is that BitTorrent is also a major member of the pirated content market, meaning that relative to, say, SOPA, the site should be halted solely because it traffics pirated content, regardless of legal activities.c) While it is not always the goal of ISPs to halt internet piracy, it is their business to supply internet to their clients, and it is certainly within their bounds to place restrictions on the services they provide. Certainly clients may not like it if they are blocked from a particular site, but this is simply one of the reasons that individuals switch who they buy from. The Opposition has yet to argue precisely why it is not within the rights of ISPs to control what content they supply to their users-because they do.Innovationa) The value of each of these is indeed intrinsic; however, I would prefer ISPs decide what is available rather than a commission of 5 people.b) To clarify:a. Various content on the internet are different-ex., playing PTP games online eats more bandwidth than simple google searches, thus making them greatly different relative to ISPsb. They ought to be treated differently-because one uses more bandwidth than the other, bandwidth being the ‘currency’ ISPs deal in when providing service to users, it is only natural that ISPs treat the two on different levels (or pricing, should they decide)c. In Other Words-because various content on the internet are not equal in the eyes of ISPs due to the bandwidth they use or their popularity, etc., it is illogical to force ISPs to treat them identicallyWith regard to the household analogy:a) My ‘view’ is against net neutrality. This resolution does not require me to specify how the ISPs should do this; my burden of proof is simply to argue for the rejection of net neutrality. Thus, Opposition’s question is non-topical.b) ISPs have not addressed internet congestion because they feel a better solution is to have clients paying for the level of data they want to use. In the Comcast article, the stated goal of restricting access to BitTorrent was to manage the network and “keep file-sharing traffic from swallowing too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers.” ISPs haven’t undertaken another solution due to the enormous cost of doing so. A rejection of net neutrality would result in an immediate solution; the institution of net neutrality legislation allows for solution, but depends on action by ISPs independent of legislation, and thus cannot be said to have solvency. Thus, a rejection of net neutrality holds sway here as solvency for network congestion falls in favor of a rejection of net neutrality in this debate.Sources:[1] https://bulk.resource.org...[2] http://transition.fcc.gov...[4] http://uspolitics.about.com...[5] http://www.breitbart.com...[6] http://www.journalism.org...[7] http://www.fcc.gov...[8] http://www.dailydot.com...