The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy.

This debate is about what the Internet will become in the years to come; Whether it will remain an open platform for advancement, or a platform for the advancement of three or four large corporations and their partners. Let's look at the Verizon example given, they spent 18 billion on fiber optics. This statistic is supposed to make the point that these companies spend money, and that were net neutrality put into practice, this investment would be somehow become terribly unprofitable. I want to point out two aspects of the source given though. First, "they are expected to start turning profits on their new offerings in 2009." 3 years, only 3 years to turn a profit on an 18 billion dollar investment. We can see the wild profitability of controlling such a large portion of our nations communication infrastructure. Net neutrality does not make this a bad investment, it doesn't make expanding a network's reach, or increasing it's capacity something that loses money, but it does ensure that while a company is expanding they don't screw the customers that are already connected. Faster connections can be bought, and people will want them. Making your network faster, advancing your network, will be met enthusiastically by consumers, and is not undermined by net neutrality. Second, "Because many companies offer package-deals to customers which include telephone, internet and cable TV service,..." This bundling, this use of the same infrastructure for a variety of data types, illustrates the end-to-end principle that the Internet was built on. The Internet relies on intelligent terminals, and a dumb network. By having a network that can facilitate all types of data we allow for a network like the internet. The "smart network" is not a positive, once the network starts telling the data what to do, we limit what the data can do. Look to the telephone network as an example. It was built to facilitate one type of data transfer at one rate that was the main of transmitting voice. Once a new way to transmit voice was found though, this network, that would make"intelligent" assumptions about what that data needed to do, prevented this better form of communication. Once we dethrone data as king of the network, we permanently impair the Internet's ability to adapt and improve. http://www.wordiq.com... Yes, ISPs are profit motivated. Does this mean that they will seek the best consumer experience, or that they will seek the consumer experience that best benefits themselves? The negation says that with net neutrality, consumers would be unable tailer their internet for their use. This isn't true, and again I turn to the end-to-end principle. If you've ever looked at your router settings, you'll find the ability to prioritize your traffic, to put Skype over firefox, to put one router port or device over the rest. This is the intelligent terminal of the end-to-end network. And you may say or think that this takes a high degree of technical know-how, but it doesn't, ISPs offer to guide you through this set-up already. -------- 1) Net neutrality will encourage and protect innovation and competition. There is a difference between unregulated, and decentralized. Regulation preventing the Internet from being centrally controlled is in no detrimental to the end of a decentralized network. My opponent seems to leave out the fact that for those servers to be accessed, people need to go through ISPs. The ability of ISPs to tailer shape consumer traffic for the benefit of their bank accounts is directly related to the entrepreneurial nature of the internet. Which do you think is more profitable - allowing competing services primarily operating out of a garage , or teaming multi billion dollar companies to crush their competition? Microsoft, at $224.75 billion, or Linux. Google, $163.2 billion, or askjeeves. ISPs are profit motivated. Beyond this, look at who owns the Internet. Should we allow the Internet to be controlled by companies, the 5 or so network service providers that control the Backbone of the Internet, would control access to the entire network. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 2) IP Standards I point again to the end-to-end network design, the way ISPs handle data transfer is the foundation of these protocols. The TCP protocol is responsible for error checking, the application controls the preference of accuracy over speed or vise versa, and that protocol depends on a neutral network. Once the network starts making assumptions about how to treat data, we inhibit future improvements and adaptations. http://www.wordiq.com... (specifically the IDIOT SAVANT BEHAVIORS FOR DIFFERENT DATA TYPES section) 3) Free exchange of information, and rights of the consumer "They have no reason to censor information." ISPs are profit motivated, as you said yourself. Teaming up with multi-billion dollar companies is profitable, and ISPs thus have every reason to censor and favor certain information, competitors, and sites. "The FCC under net neutrality however can." This is completely false and baseless claim. "As for ISPs that monitor traffic, that is irrelevant to net neutrality" ISPs being peering into your packets, building online profiles of you, and selling it to the highest bidder, is in no way being indifferent to the contents of those packets. Without net neutrality, we leave the Internet open to attack. We need net neutrality to prevent the Internet from becoming and Invasive and biased service provided and controlled by large corporations. We need net neutrality to protect the open and innovative nature of the Internet.