WODC: This House Believes That Provisions of Internet Services Should be a Public Utility

Contention 1: Semantics and Confusion I would like to begin by pointing out that my opponent is using semantics in this debate. This is nothing new as my opponent has done this before by trying to use the definitions to manipulate the outcome and the course of the debate. If we first look at the comments we can see that we agreed the debate was over net neutrality, but in responding to my opening arguments he changed this. I would like the judges to keep this in mind when they’re voting on this debate as I will now prove that even using the definitions my opponent has provided us in this debate. "Nationalization (American English), (British and Commonwealth spelling nationalisation) is the process of taking a private industry or private assets into public ownership by a national government or state. " Okay, so here we see that if the Private company is possessed by the Public (nation or state) then it's nationalization, but where have I seen this one before? "Typically a public utility has a Monopoly on the service it provides. It is more economically efficient to have only one business provide the service because the infrastructure required to produce and deliver a product such as electricity or water is very expensive to build and maintain. A consequence of this monopoly is that federal, state, and local governments regulate public utilities to ensure that they provide a reasonable level of service at a fair price. "Wow, we can see here that it falls under a Monopoly of the Public Sector. Since we see that the current status quo is that of Private businesses like Comcast that is NOT a monopoly we can see that this IS TOPICAL and my debate arguments should be accepted as it fits under the definitions that my opponent has given us and all points dropped by my opponent should be concidered as a dropped argument in this debate and I will extend those across the board. My opponent states that I have dropped his arguement over the cost of infrastructure and that he also claims that I dropped his monopoly arguement, but he fails to acknowledge and he has yet to post an effective rebuttal to my Anti-Sherman Bill which prevents this as the FCC commissioner has shown that there has practically been hardly any issues at all under this problematic system of which my opponent is purposing as it is ILLEGAL under the status quo. My opponent is confused when he talks about the recognition of the companies having too much power as the debate is over whether or not they should be a Public utility meaning that he is to argue for their Nationialization. Then he moves on to state in his 4th round that the regulation is appart of that Public Utility MEANING that Net neutrality is also permitted by his standards in this debate! So I extend those arguments across the board which he's dropped. My opponent states that this is impossible (the price bankruptcy), but there is one Public Utility and Government monopoly that he failed to have told you about and that is the US Postal Service. The US Federal Government has a monopoly on the Postal Serivice and it has harmed innovation in the field as there is no competition. [1] Rand Paul notes that if compeititon was permitted that there would be tons of other companies joining the field including the likes of Adams. [2] Note that he has completely dropped my Soviet argument and it is key in this debate as it shows a huge probability of this happening as he also dropped my Milton Friedman argument here. My opponent is mistaken on the Kant’s Principle’s argument. This is due to the fact that my opponent is confusing Kant’s principles for that of John Locke’s Social Contract theory. This theory is escentially a mutual agreement between individuals to give up the “right to be violent” and there is thus a civilized society. The main reason that Kant’s argument falls under the statehood status is that under an individual premise it would be impossible to have certain actions carried out by the government or privately as this would invalidate the entirety of having a government. My opponent states that public utilities should be sometimes preformed but this is simply a mere assumption and must be thrown out. Due to this confusion I extend this argument across the board as we can see that the role of government is that of a Minarchy where the government provides basic protection of the citizens and ensure’s their rights. My opponent has NOT in this debate proved that the Internet is a right and hence the government should not intervene on the subject. Contention 2: Regulation My opponent completely dropps this argument as BOTH articles I sited were from the Wall Street Journal which is a highly credable source when it comes to economics and business, but my opponent just throws out the argument like yesterdays news. Note that my articles actual talk about internet in general while my opponent's article not only sites ONLY phone data, but it's the ratio of the speed and cost which is entirely different ball game. We must take my articles over his as it looks at the whole picture not just cellphones in general. Contention 3: Sherman Anti-Trust Bill My opponent has failed here once more. I have challenged my opponent to find an area in the status quo where there is abuse. Yes there are murgers, but that is part of business and politics. I could get into how it drives up costs and use the health care industry as an example, but I'm running out of characters and that's for a different debate. We can see that a monopoly is when one company dominates the entire industry by being the sole business, as you yourself said. We have yet to actually see this as the Sherman bill has prevented this and the FCC Director himself, as I showed in my opening arguments for Round 2, stated that, "“in the almost nine years since [net neutrality] fears were first sewn, net regulation lobbyists can point to fewer than a handful of cases of alleged misconduct, out of an infinite number of Internet communications. All those cases were resolved in favor of consumers under current law. ” [3] So here we can see that even the FCC director has stated and shown that the current law has resolved the issues here. With that we can see that I am on topic and that we mustn't allow the Internet to fall into Public Utility as it would become more broken than the US postal service.