Question: Should net neutrality be restored?

Title: Net neutrality adds no new regs, only preserves Internet neutrality Content: "Net Neutrality is the Internet's First Amendment." Save the Internet on Opposing Views.com.: "Advocates of Net Neutrality are not promoting new regulations. We are attempting to restore tried and tested consumer protections and network operating principles that made the Internet a great engine for free speech and innovation. By passing Net Neutrality legislation we're restoring under law the open Internet's most fundamental principle."

Title: Net neutrality laws. Content: i will

Title: Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed Content: Net Neutrality is the freedom of the Internet. For my argument I have three reasons: 1. ISPs will have more control over the Internet without Net Neutrality. 2. Net Neutrality is the freedom of speech. 3. Without Net Neutrality, the Internet will be more expensive. REASON ONE With Net Neutrality in place, ISPs can't control who goes in the fast lane or not. This makes certain that everyone surfs at the same speeds and nobody goes slower than anyone else. Without Net Neutrality, ISPs can control you and how fast your browser loads, which sites you can go to, how you operate... Without Net Neutrality, ISPs control everything. The worst part is that you don't even know if your ISP is slowing you down. All ISPs can do anything and hide it. "A widely cited example of a violation of net neutrality principles was the Internet service provider Comcast's secret slowing ("throttling") of uploads from peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) applications by using forged packets. Comcast did not stop blocking these protocols, like BitTorrent, until the Federal Communications Commission ordered them to stop. In another minor example, The Madison River Communications company was fined US$15,000 by the FCC, in 2004, for restricting their customers' access to Vonage, which was rivaling their own services. AT&T was also caught limiting access to FaceTime, so only those users who paid for AT&T's new shared data plans could access the application. In July 2017, Verizon Wireless was accused of throttling after users noticed that videos played on Netflix and YouTube were slower than usual, though Verizon commented that it was conducting "network testing" and that net neutrality rules permit "reasonable network management practices"" (Wikipedia). ISPs blocking websites brings me to my second argument... REASON TWO Repealing Net Neutrality violates the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This should have forced the government to keep Net Neutrality in place, noting that repealing Net Neutrality is respecting that these ISPs can prevent many from reading the news, articles, forums, and statements made on the internet. Not only does repealing Net Neutrality go against freedom of speech, it goes against all of Amendment I. Stopping freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right for people to assemble, and petitioning the government for a redress. This goes directly against the amendment, so even if there was any good to repealing Net Neutrality, our government can't do it. REASON THREE With Net Neutrality replaced, ISPs can make you pay more for absolutely anything. For instance, an ISP could slow down everyone's traffic, resulting in hundreds of people paying more for a faster internet. With a slower internet, people using a browser for "quick awnsers" would come to an end. The internet would be greatly affected in ways nobody wants. Another way for the internet to become more expensive is if an ISP forced you to pay to enter sites. "Americans' average wealth tops $301,000 per adult, enough to rank us fourth on the latest Credit Suisse Global Wealth report. But that figure doesn't tell you how the middle class American is doing. Americans' median wealth is a mere $44,900 per adult -- half have more, half have less" (CNN). If ISPs started forcing you to pay, many Americans would have to stop using the internet. Not to mention ISPs could start attempting to DDoS each other, fighting for a way to hack into an opponent's system. There, they could slow down all of their customer's internet traffic and block sites they go to. Hackers could also try to do this too, and create fraud ISPs to control others. Repealing Net Neutrality would open the doors to more internet crime, and affect how the internet works from now on. Therefore, I still stand by my argument that repealing Net Neutrality is a negative.

Title: Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed Content: I have accepted your debate. I recently was debating over this same thing- on the other side- and the other debater changed my mind. I wish to spread on what I have learned through this debate. Let the debate begin!

Title: Net neutrality Content: should be a good debate.

Title: Net neutrality is required to preserve the existing structure of the internet. Content: This argument is more speculative, it is true. No one really knows what will happen if net neutrality falls.

Title: The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. Content: 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.

Title: Net neutrality. Content: Net neutrality is the concept that the internet should remain neutral and not be dictasted by content or money.

Title: Net neutrality Content: Internet neutrality is The principle that internet service providers and the government should treat all data on the website equally, with the exception of anything illegal like child porn. That means companies can't slow down a website like debate.org for any reason or favor one website over another. How ISPs would have you believe is that without this rule that they would speed up websites making them faster for everyone. However in practice how this works is that ISPs slow down everyone then demand that companies pay a bribe to make the internet go the same speed it used to. Let's take Hulu and Netflix. Without net neutrality GCI for example would slow them both down then demand they pay say One million dollars to be in the so called "fast lane" which is really what they had before. If Netflix payed the bribe and Hulu didn't they would slow Hulu and Netflix would have a unfair advantage. They could keep threatening Netflix and force them to pay more and more. It would also make it impossible for start up companies to go anywhere because they would be to slow because they can't pay the bribe so start up businesses couldn't be successful. For more info check out this video my CGP grey's video on the subject.

Title: The US shouldn't require net neutrality. Content: Net neutrality "is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication." http://en.wikipedia.org... The first round is for acceptance. The second is for arguments. The third is for rebuttals.

Title: The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. Content: With a society that is becoming more and more connected to, and reliant on, the Internet, there is an increasing need to address the issue of net neutrality. Net neutrality is a broad term, but for this debate I propose it be limited to this definition: Net neutrality: ISPs who charge for internet access must provide a service that enables users to send and receive packets using the Internet in a way that is indifferent to the contents, source or destination of the packets. The Internet has allowed for a truly impressive growth in interconnectivity of the world, it has provided a platform for massive innovations, and has allowed for a previously unprecedented method to share and access knowledge. A fundamental part of this network is it's flexibility, openness, and standardization. Failing to protect the open nature of the Internet is to allow the slow destruction of the Internet as a platform for the innovation that has so shaped our culture. We need to protect this free transfer of information. Implementing a net neutrality policy will protect innovation, maintain the standards that have allowed the internet to become what it is today, and protect the free exchange of ideas and knowledge. 1) Net neutrality will encourage and protect innovation and competition: So many of the great stories surrounding the Internet start in garages. So many of the business that are the giants of the tech industry started with a good idea, and that's about it. The ability of an idea to grow through the Internet with little capitol is what allowed companies like Amazon, eBay and Google to survive. Ensuring the continuity of this atmosphere is vital; Without it the Internet may devolve into something like the TV industry is now, a service provided by a few giant corporations who control access and distribution of information. Maintaining the equality of the Internet is maintaining the innovation at has so driven its development. 2) Internet Protocol Standards: Certain standards maintained across the Internet are what make it such a flexible platform for innovation and discussion. Regardless of the application using it, or the infrastructure that carries it the Internet maintains certain standards of how to treat packets of information. Among these are: (http://www.dpsproject.com...) a)Transmissions are broken down into small pieces referred to as "packets," comprised of small portions of the overall information useful to the users at each transmission's endpoints. A small set of data is prefixed to these packets, describing the source and destination of each packet and how it is to be treated. b)Internet routers transmit these packets to various other routers, changing routers freely as a means of managing network flow. c)Internet routers transmit packets independently of each other and independently of the applications that the packets are supporting. The prioritization or discrimination of packets implicitly favors certain designs, and damage others. The Internet depends on a neutral platform to maintain the features so central to it. 3) Free exchange of information, and rights of the consumer: By ensuring the indifferent treatment of content and destinations of connections we ensure the ability to freely share and discuss ideas. By allowing packets to be treated differently based on content or destination we open the door for massive invasions of privacy, for robbing consumers of their fair use, and for a biased view of what should be a free environment. Do you really want your ISP to be able to look at every piece of information you send and receive on the internet? Do you want what your viewing in your home to be collected, packaged, and sold to any company that wants to more effectively shove advertisements down you throat? Net neutrality will protect the privacy of the consumer and the anonymity of the Web. When you look at the actual plans we buy for internet access, you'll see something like "15Mbps plan", buying you this plan is buying access to up to 15Mbps of information. Practices of throttling downloads or torrents of heavy users is robbing you of what you purchased. Let's say you buy a 20Mbps plan from Comcast. You have access to 20Mbps, but let's say Comcast starts throttling bittorrent (again), so your 20Mbps becomes 5Mbps if you're using bittorrent. Allowing ISPs to throttle consumers, beyond capping their speed at what they purchased, is equivalent to theft. What if ISPs start making deals with certain companies? What if Comcast made a deal with Facebook to slowdown packets that were headed for Myspace, or Disapora, or other social networking sites? What if Microsoft had downloads of openoffice, or linux distributions slowed? This would crush the nature of the internet (not to mention the open source movement), and provide a distorted view of what should be a open environment. Net neutrality is a policy essential to the future of the Internet. We need to to foster innovation and competition. We need to maintain the standards and flexibility of the Internet that made it what it is today. We need to protect the rights, and the privacy, of American citizens. We need net neutrality.

Title: Should The US Keep Net Neutrality Content: Hey, I'm really interested in this topic so I'm gonna be playing devil's advocate. Framing: There has been massive hysteria around net neutrality, but it really isn't that bad, and the repeal would do more good than harm. -Ajit Pai says it best: "the sky isn"t falling, consumers will stay protected, internet will continue to thrive." >>Contentions<< 1. Federal Control of the Internet is Dangerous: -Wired Magazine: The govt, through FCC, now has the vast power to regulate what is essential info. Govt overreach is being done in the name of net neutrality -Tech Law & Policy Attorney David O"Neil: The FCC can forbid or allow one thing after anotherU94; shaping what you can/can"t see on the internet -the problem of, "blocking and slowing down certain info is bad," is possible in the hands of gov. too! -Appeals Court Judge Judy Silberman: Now the gov. can do whatever it wants as long as it is, "making the Internet better." Gov. really has no filter now. Ex: 2 years ago, in San Fransisco, the local police department shut down all of the internet to stop a protest. The government had the power to suppress free speech because they had access to the internet. THE INTERNET WOULD BE BETTER IN THE HANDS ON INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS. -Also, according to NPR(and proven from page 249 in the official net neutrality rulebook): ISPs must disclose when they are slowing down certain traffic, thus showing customer when it is happening. Thus the customer is always informed, and very little harm can come from the repeal of Net Neutrality 2. Net Neutrality is a Red Herring that Hurts Innovation: -FCC plan (pg 249.): businesses need legal/financial freedom in order to spur innovation and creativity. By encouraging network investment, consumersU94; benefit. -basically, ISPs have more power to create better service when the gov. isn"t breathing down their necks. -to simplify this: if we repeal net neutrality, then ISPs will be able to make faster internet for everyone -a world w/out NN would actually provide better service b/c companies would have more leeway to create faster content -Fox News: no internet provider wants to be known for "slow service," or being, "anti-free speech," so the consumer has nothing 2 worry about. -also, why is NN so important when before it was implemented, the internet was fine with none of these, "dire problems?" 3. Fairness and Desirability: -lets think super logically: services that require high amounts of reliability like hospitals would do much better w/out NN -I am talking to my dr. online about a serious heart condition that I have. That deserves faster internet connection than someone downloading music. ISPs should have the ability to speed up more important things -w/out Net Neutrality ISPs would be able to block harmful content like viruses & scams -the common thought is that ISPs will ruin free speech and block certain websites that they don"t agree w/ but, really they will block undesirable things that no one wants to run into while online All these factors make repealing NN beneficial & desirable Thanks, Love to hear your response

Title: Net neutrality. Content: I think the Internet would still remain neutral. Why? The Internet is capitalist more so without government control on how people charge you for services. The only thing net neutrality really did was prevent a provider from charging you for certain apps or other services like debate.org. Just like with cable or DirectTV you must pay more for better quality content or shows like NFL Sunday Ticket you pay more for more. So, if Sprint charges more for services like YouTube why not go to Verizon where YouTube is free.

Title: Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed Content: Round 3: 1st rebuttal Round 4: 2nd rebuttal Round 5: Closing statements I believe net neutrality should be repealed. Change my mind. I hope to have a good debate.

Title: Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed Content: Recently, the FCC voted for net neutrality to be repealed, and I support this decision wholeheartedly. My reasons for this are as follows: 1. The repeal of net neutrality eliminates regulations on ISPs, helping that sector of the economy grow. 2. A lot of the worries advocates of net neutrality have are rather unrealistic or void of any economic sense. REASON NUMBER ONE: Getting rid of net neutrality will get rid of a slew of harmful regulations on ISPs and help the free market take care of the internet, as it should. To see the effects this will have, we must examine what regulations occur under title II (AKA net neutrality). Under net neutrality, ISPs must submit any ideas for a "new technology or business model" to the FCC. This regulation greatly hampers any upcoming innovation, harming the internet economy. This isn't even the least of it though. The FCC also has the power to "partially regulate the capital investment of existing companies" and decide what companies can enter the ISP market. Yes, the FCC can decide what companies can become ISPs, which means that this "monopoly" problem constantly brought up by opponents of the repeal is more likely to happen under net neutrality, considering that business-stifling regulation blocks potential new ISPs from entering the market. The American Action Forum states that this puts a trillion dollars of GDP and 2.5 million jobs under a "regulatory regime". Repealing net neutrality will get rid of these harmful restrictions and bring freedom back into the free market. This will take away barriers against innovation, barriers against investment, barriers against entry into the ISP market (which limits consumer choice), and to top it all off, by getting rid of excessive government regulation, we will be triggering authoritarians in the process. That is a win-win-win-win, and to reference Donald Trump, I am starting to get tired of all the winning. Other regulations that will be destroyed under this repeal include the prohibition of paid priority. Paid priority is when ISPs "pay to have certain bits sent to computer screens at a faster rate than others" (Daily Wire). Smaller ISPs used to use this, giving them an advantage considering they had less materials but could pay money for better speeds. Net neutrality comes into play, preventing paid priority from happening, and keeping smaller ISPs (who ironically enough, are who net neutrality advocates claim to help) from having that fighting chance in the marketplace. Because of this, consumers are placed in a lose-lose situation, in which they must choose between higher costs, or slower internet. Getting rid of net neutrality will bring paid priority back into play, giving smaller ISPs the advantage they once had. Considering that title II means the internet is a public telecommunications utility, the FCC also has power to levy taxes against ISPs. A 2014 study made the estimation that net neutrality regulations could result in as much as $45.4 billion lost in new ISP investments over the next 5 years. Tunku Varadarajan interviewed Ajit Pai, commissioner of the FCC, and gathered this: "Among our nation"s 12 largest internet service providers," he told the audience, "domestic broadband capital expenditures decreased by 5.6%, or $3.6 billion, between 2014 and 2016." I ask him to elaborate. "As I"ve seen it and heard it," he says, "Title II regulations have stood in the way of investment. Just last week, for instance, we heard from 19 municipal broadband providers. These are small, government-owned ISPs who told us that "even though we lack a profit motive, Title II has affected the way we do business." " By keeping net neutrality in place, we aren"t sticking it to the man. We aren"t attacking those greedy corporations. We are hurting the small ISPs by levying taxes against them and taking away their special advantages and no amount of Jimmy Kimmel tyrades can change that. Repealing net neutrality can bring the good changes these smaller ISPs need. REASON NUMBER TWO: The worries of advocates for net neutrality are rather unrealistic. There are two main causes of concerns: ISPs will make you pay for certain websites, and ISPs will block access to certain websites or throttle speeds to certain websites. A tweet from "Banksy" states the typical worries: Twitter: $14.99 per month Snapchat: $9.99 per month Youtube: $19.99 per month Netflix: $9.99 per movie Google: $1.99 per search "If you don't want to pay extra for your favorite sites you need to be supporting #netneutrality". However, these claims are all false. Now if it wasn"t for the fact that there is a 99.99% chance those numbers are made up, that might just be a convincing argument. The only problem is that it is completely lacking of any economic sense. If an ISP actually made people pay two dollars for every google search, then people would be leaving that ISP in droves in favor of a ISP with better prices. This is due to the principle of competition, a great factor in capitalist economies when it comes to keeping prices low without government intervention. Of course, there is the argument that some people only have access to one ISP, meaning they have a monopoly and can do whatever they want. This is also false. If an ISP charged prices for access to certain sites, another ISP could go into the area offering better prices, meaning a great profit for them, and horrible losses for the other ISP. The first ISP then lowers their prices to compete, resulting in a win-win for consumers, who not only have multiple choices, but lower prices. People also like to cite Portugal as an example for what the U.S. could be like without net neutrality, as they have you pay for certain packages like the social media package, the games package, or the music package. But what advocates of net neutrality don't know is that using Portugal as an argument for net neutrality is actually a pretty harmful idea, almost on the same tier as shooting yourself in the foot. Snopes put it best when stating: "The European Union"s Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) established net neutrality guidelines in 2015. Portugal is a member of the European Union, so its internet providers must comply." In other words, this apocalyptic, prepackaged, pay-to-play world we are told we are about to live in apparently happens under a country with net neutrality regulations. Besides having to pay to access certain websites, another main worry of Net Neutrality advocates is that ISPs will "throttle" speeds to certain websites or block access to others. The only issue with this distressed vision is that these worries have no factual or historical backing. Ian Tuttle from the National Review makes notice of the fact that when the FCC first considered net neutrality in 2010, they could only name four instances of anticompetitive behavior, all of those being relatively minor. Not only that, but cell phone networks are not subject to net neutrality-esque regulations of any kind, and they don"t engage in such anticompetitive behavior. About a decade ago, Comcast attempted to "throttle" speeds (slowing down access) to certain data packets but were "pilloried in the court of public opinion" and quickly relented. There goes that concern! To finish my arguments, I shall make an allusion to the past. In February 2015, Net Neutrality was enacted. I do not remember having to pay for certain websites and I do not remember hearing any stories about ISPs raising the prices of entry to certain websites. I have no worries about the future of the U.S. under a net neutrality-free market economy and because of that I can see of no reason but to vote in affirmation to this resolution. SOURCES: https://www.snopes.com... https://www.dailywire.com... http://www.nationalreview.com...

Title: The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. Content: "This debate is about what the Internet will become in the years to come" No it's a debate about FCC regulating ISPs in regards to access rates with users and what business plans they can entail. I've already pointed out the falsity of such statements in the prior round. It remains an ipse dixit claim bordering on fear mongering. It ignores the nature of what the Internet is, what property is and seeks to void the proper use of an ISPs property. "Let's look at the Verizon example given" Strawman. The argument detailing the expenditure of Verizon dealt with that the ISP themselves provide the infrastructure, including the upgraded technology. Nor did I argue that net neutrality makes such ventures unprofitable. What net neutrality does is explicitly reduce the available income of an ISP by denying it the ability to tailor access rates to customer supply. The corollary of that is that under net neutrality, fees of *all* users must then account for the discrepancy in profit margin in relation to infrastructure growth. It makes all the payers for the benefit that only some want. That's the issue there. Even so such arguments from profit amount to little more than red herrings. What one may do rightfully with ones property is unrelated to any profit they garner from such as an arbiter. "Making your network faster, advancing your network, will be met enthusiastically by consumers, and is not undermined by net neutrality." Absolutely it is. The available income diminishes exponentially once you implement net neutrality as a *price control mechanism* for ISPs which is an *explicit* goal of net neutrality. To state this will have zero effect on an ISPs ability to expand current infrastructure and invest in new technology that will grant greater access speed is simply ignorant. Net neutrality denies tailoring plans, i.e., variance in priced plans that relate to access rates. It demands that access rates are indeterminate by use. That means heavy use cannot be charged accordingly for those wishing to pay, it means those wishing to pay for stable high access speeds cannot. It means the cost of users who do use high amounts of data transfer must be costed by all. If, as was the case with Comcast, an ISP is forced to devote a large portion of its bandwidth to a minority of its customer base, it is overall not being used profitably. The fallout of making an ISP's property less profitable, under government force, is the reduction of incentive to increase its bandwidth capacities by investing in more property and likewise innovative technology or services. "dumb internet" Net neutrality advocates a 'dumb' or stupid Internet - one unregulated by an intelligence that might favor the transmission of some content over other content. It's simply another way of saying no priority can be given to data over any other. However to advocate such a thing one must ignore what the Internet is, namely, transmission of data across private property. Data is transmitted through the infrastructure of ISPs (explicitly their private property) all the cables, computers, maintenance and infrastructure that make the Internet **possible at all.** The "stupid" Internet of net neutrality advocates is explicitly one in which ISPs must, under threat of government force, remain passive to how data flows through their infrastructure. "consumers would be unable tailer their internet for their use ." Irrelevant. The call for net neutrality is the ability to administer controls *to the ISP* not the end user. Customisation of user preferences only relates to how ISPs have the ability to manage their data transfer. The ability for an ISP to offer a premium rate of access to customers willing to pay is not analogous to the end user changing their router settings. Just like the ability to have express mail delivery services is unrelated to when you decide to post a package. "My opponent seems to leave out the fact that for those servers to be accessed, people need to go through ISPs." I think you'll find I mentioned such fact several times. Such as net neutrality neutralising an ISPs ability to charge differentiated prices to servers of varying size requirements. "consumer traffic for the benefit of their bank accounts is directly related to the entrepreneurial nature of the internet" Again, unrelated to how business interests work, the history of the Internet itself showing explicitly contrary. The fear mongering is still ipse dixit. "allowing competing services primarily operating out of a garage , or teaming multi billion dollar companies to crush their competition?" I'm saying irrelevant. That's the point. Servers require ISPs. End users require servers and ISPs. ISPs require end users and servers. ISPs aren't blocking servers apart from ones related to illegal activity and have no business interest in doing so. Again, still irrelevant to private property violation and net neutrality itself. "ISPs are profit motivated." Of course. They are a business. None of this has to do with validating net neutrality - freezing the ability of ISPs to tailor data priority if they so choose, across property they own. "who owns the Internet." I covered this already in R1. Source code and protocols are for the majority, open source. ISP infrastructure - private, servers - private, end user hardware - private. "Should we allow the Internet to be controlled by companies" Equivocation. Data is transmitted through private property. "the 5 or so network service providers that control the Backbone of the Internet, would control access to the entire network." If by access you mean ISPs are ISPs, then yes they are. That ISPs may discriminate data content and charge premium rates for it is their right as a business. Again no different from say, cable TV services. Net neutrality however denies customers willing to have premium access at their choosing and ISPs from offering it. "we inhibit future improvements and adaptations." Under FCC regulations, such innovation would be likely barred, seeing as it amounts to *variance in data* which is what net neutrality explicitly denies. Unregulated, people are free to innovate and support what they deem fit. As has been the cases up to now. An ISP that doesn't provide access is not a successful ISP. Largely irrelevant though. "ISPs thus have every reason to censor and favor certain information, competitors, and sites." Why censor when you can charge differentiating rates? Again, an ISP that does not provide services to end users isn't a successful one. There is no valid reason to assume an ISP will run as an authoritarian regime that denies access to content. A point which again is irrelevant to net neutrality which deals with data prioritisation and not, content availability. Nothing about the FCC's net neutrality regards base censorship. Net neutrality is about *how* data is transmitted. Not what. http://www.fee.org... http://www.naviganteconomics.com... "This is completely false and baseless claim." They are already doing it with radio and TV 'balanced view' proposed regulation. There's nothing to suggest they consider the Internet any differently in terms of media. "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." Again, irrelevant to net neutrality. It's purely a contractual issue between end user and provider.

Title: Net Neutrality means greater regulation of the Internet Content: "Net Neutrality Will Increase Government Monitoring of Internet Traffic." Hands Off the Internet on Opposing Views: "Net neutrality calls for the Federal government to enforce standards on how online data is transmitted. But to accomplish this, there would have to be a significant increase in federal monitoring of online traffic at all levels to ensure compliance, including both the public Internet and dedicated private networks. Moreover, once inevitable disputes arose, federal courts would become involved, which would likely lead to even higher levels of monitoring."

Title: Net Neutrality Content: Let's begin.

Title: Net neutrality helps preserve democracy and free speech Content: With a neutral Internet, anyone can spread the information of anything. Democracy Now can provide their alternative liberal "War and Peace Report," and the Ku Klutz Klan can spread their racism and hatred. Senator Al Franken of Minnesota has spoken out about net neutrality, saying it is "the first amendment issue of our time." With a controlled Internet, cable service providers would have the power to turn the Internet into a North Korean-esque media zone. They would have the power to become masters of propaganda, blocking any negative news concerning themselves or their interests and promoting whatever they would. "With great power," says Peter Parker's Uncle Ben, "comes great responsibility." That doctrine stands up in the world of superheroes. In a world controlled by individuals responsible for the financial welfare of themselves and their companies, however, we have doubts about how responsible they will be.

Title: Net Neutrality Content: "The internet is far too vast to be properly regulated. The money required to promote neutrality is far too large amount to be feasible." Net Neutrality enforcement isn't like police enforcement in that one is regulating innumerable potentially morally unrestrained individuals. There are a finite number of telecoms in the US, and that number is getting smaller as the giants swallow up the smaller ones. Considering that Net Neutrality has been to this point the de facto standard, the telecoms would not have a mandate to implement; rather a restriction to avoid. The only expense would come when the principle is violated, which could be settled easily enough by a class action lawsuit. "a successful business in the real world should also reap the benefits of advertisement on the web." Such is the nature of the internet right now. Are you saying the field should be tilted further in favor of established businesses in the interest of fairness by allowing an internet tax paid to the service providers? If that is your argument, then it essentially boils down to which side we compensate towards: the landed and established businesses, or the smaller, potentially successful startups. While one could make the argument that the former is "fairer", it is only so when regarding the present independently. Most large companies today had the benefit of being one of the first to corner a market. Simply by virtue of temporal advantage, and not necessarily by virtue of inherent product quality (though this is often the case as well), they were able to succeed. It follows then that in the interest of fairness, barriers to entry be removed as much as is reasonable in order to allow at least a similar opportunity as was afforded to the currently dominant business. This leads to more consistently multipolar markets, which are nearly always more productive than unipolar monopolistic markets.

Title: Should The US Keep Net Neutrality Content: Thank you for your acceptance. Playing Devil's Advocate isn't quite something I'm ready to do yet, so I applaud you. The problem with repealing Net Neutrality is that the internet is now an important utility for many people in industrialized nations, including the US. Repealing this would be like if you were charged different rates on what you use your water for. Your pipe to the internet shouldn't be watered down by corporation who historically, have ripped people off again and again. If you're a start up business, like an e-commerce makeup company, or a social media platform, crippling Net Neutrality cripples your ability to grow as a business. You'll be locked behind a pay wall, at the mercy of larger corporations. Your competition is either stamped out along with you, or unbeatable. As a business owner, is that what you want? No, of course not. Then there's repression of freedom of speech. At the snap of their fingers, depending on your telecom company's CEO, your news sites, blogs, or any high profile political entities could be locked - simply for being too liberal, or too conservative. As a liberal, would you want to be restricted to the dumpster fire that is Fox News? No, you want what you feel is the most reliable source at your disposal. Then there's the nickeling and dimeing of consumers. Imagine this: you're watching some YouTube, and you get this message. "Your free trial of YouTube has ended. Upgrade to our premium plan at [insane price] per month! Have a nice day!" Who the hell wants to pay extra for something they're already paying for? Nobody, they already get more than enough money to keep the servers 100% open with the lowest level plan! I get that you need to make a profit, but part of that is having consumers like you. If you throttle websites, expect yourself to be despised. That's the opposite of what you want as a company.

Title: Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Content: Net neutrality is required to preserve the existing structure of the internet.

Title: Net Neutrality Content: Net Neutrality is an issue coming up with increasing regularity with service providers altering, blocking, or prioritizing content. With modern society becoming increasingly dependent on free and unfettered flow of information as the internet provides, Net Neutrality is becoming increasingly vital to future economic growth. Firstly, one of the most common arguments against Net Neutrality is that it is internet regulation, using the latter word as a pejorative. Free market economy, they say, mandates that ISPs may run their networks however they choose. However, they neglect the fact that the internet is a market itself, and ISPs act not so much as companies presiding over a resource as governments presiding over an economy. Just as the government needs restraint on its own economic control in order for its economy to grow, so the service providers need to exercise restraint in their control over the internet's tubes for it to grow. Secondly, let's look at what gives the internet such vast economic potential in the first place: it is this level playing field that has been maintained up to this point, giving McDonalds just as much potential for a great internet presence as the restaurant down the street. Of course this has been skewed by advertising and convention (people are more likely to go to places they've heard of, for example), but this will only be exacerbated to an extreme degree by the loss of net neutrality. Allowing the service provider arbitrary control over what gets to their end users will inevitably impose a huge burden on smaller website owners who cannot afford to front the cash that Google or Amazon can in order to get priority access to end users. The loss of net neutrality will mean a huge barrier to entry into any market as the internet becomes increasingly integral to information gathering, which will damage economic competitiveness not only between internet companies, but anybody for whom an internet presence is important.

Title: The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. Content: Before I move onto refutations, I'd like to draw attention to the style the negations last argument adopted. Small chunks of arguments were taken, out of context of the larger argument. Those arguments were then either weakly refuted, called irrelevant despite it being brought up by the negation and being quite central to the resolution, or had the definition of net neutrality shifted to try to invalidate the argument. And don't forget the latin and logical fallacies. This was in an attempt to create the illusion of this case being completely torn apart. So first, let me restate the definition of net neutrality, as given three lines into the debate. Net neutrality: ISPs who charge for internet access must provide a service that enables users to send and receive packets using the Internet in a way that is indifferent to the contents, source or destination of the packets. Net neutrality is not access rates, it is not an "explicit price control mechanism", it is about how packets are treated and delivered. The neg decided to refute almost all of my points with a variation of the same argument, that being that traffic is sent over private property and thus should be allowed to be manipulated and used however the ISP wants. In doing so, my opponent has granted the arguments on a technical basis, opposing them only morally on the basis of the private property argument. To list those arguments opposed morally, thus granted technically. -The end-to-end design of the Internet needs to be preserved -ISPs have motivation to grant multi-billion dollar companies favored treatment over smaller enterprises -Control of the Internet will be in the hands of a handful of large companies that control the Backbone Network. "It ignores the nature of what the Internet is" The Internet is a egalitarian, decentralized system for the free exchange of information. To grant control of that system to those few companies, you must ignore the nature of what the Internet is. "It means the cost of users who do use high amounts of data transfer must be costed by all. If, as was the case with Comcast, an ISP is forced to devote a large portion of its bandwidth to a minority of its customer base" *This* is a contractual issue, when a company sells plans that they cannot deliver on, that being the access rate these torrenters use, the fault does not lie with those who use their package, it lies with Comcast. "Absolutely it is. The available income diminishes exponentially once you implement net neutrality as a *price control mechanism* for ISPs which is an *explicit* goal of net neutrality." Again, I point to the definition of net neutrality, and this arguments nature as a contractual issue. Net neutrality is about how packets are treated and sent. If ISPs oversell their product, it is their responsibility to either handle the packages they sold, or re design those packages. "dumb internet" This is refuted by the private property argument, addressed lower down. "Irrelevant. The call for net neutrality is the ability to administer controls *to the ISP* not the end user." The ability for customization by the end user is in response to his argument of the inability to tailor access to consumer needs. This is part of the end-to-end design, and is used to show that traffic shaping isn't needed. ""entrepreneurial nature of the internet" Again, unrelated to how business interests work, " This is the motivation of companies to side with multi-billion dollar companies over garage companies yet again. It is in the ISPs obvious benefit to side with google over that kid with an old lunix computer running a search engine to get some ad revenue. "I covered this already in R1. Source code and protocols are for the majority, open source." You ignored the giant pipeline that most internet traffic will eventually flow through (see http://en.wikipedia.org...) "Why censor when you can charge differentiating rates?" Multi-billion dollar company = more profit The private property, and reduced income argument. Our governments responsibility is to protect its citizens. Part of this is to ensure that they are not exploited at the expense of profit. Take Goldman Sachs for example, we defiantly reduced their ability to profit by adding regulation, and preventing more of the trading that cause the economic downfall, but we did this because they were taking advantage of the consumer to make that profit. In the same vein we must protect the Internet from being exploited at the cost of the consumer in the name of profit. We are still buying that package from the ISP, and to say that ISPs are allowed to invade upon the property we have purchased in the form of data transmission, much less in the name of private property, is ridiculous. especially when this access rate argument can be negated by buying high access rate packages. Gah procrastination, 20 seconds remaining!

Title: The US shouldn't require net neutrality. Content: No one would propose that the U.S. Postal Service be prohibited from offering Express Mail because a "fast lane" mail service is "unfair," "undemocratic," or "bad for the economy." Yet that's exactly what net neutrality would do for Internet services. In a free and open market, incentives exist to create premium services, with faster, guaranteed delivery quality, for things like medical monitoring which require higher reliability. Of course, suppliers could be expected to charge higher prices for these premium services. Such discrimination is procompetitive. Blocking premium services in the name of neutrality, on the other hand, can have the unintended consequence of blocking premium services from which consumers could benefit. The net neutrality debate turns on the distinction between procompetitive discrimination and anticompetitive discrimination. Net neutrality condemns both alike. Antitrust laws only condemn antitompetitive discrimination, so I for antitrust enforcement, which is more flexible, nuanced, and fact-based than a rigid net neutrality regime. It simply makes sense to allow a network to favor traffic from a patient's heart monitor over traffic delivering a music download. It also makes sense to allow network operators to restrict traffic that is downright harmful, such as viruses, worms, and spam. Antitrust laws allow these procompetitive benefits while also prohibiting anticompetitive discrimination. 1. An unregulated Internet is better than a regulated Internet. The Internet has always been a free and open market, shaped by intense competition and rampant growth. Costs and consumer demand interact to set price, entry costs are low, and entrepreneurs have the latitude to experiment with new and different business models. And as a free and open market, the Internet has thrived. In the absence of heavy government regulation, and "due in large part to private investment and market-driven innovation, broadband in America has improved considerably in the last decade. More Americans are online at faster speeds than ever before." [1] Rigid net neutrality laws would change that. Instead of allowing the free market to guide investment dollars where needed, and allowing businesses to act based on the best use of scarce resources like bandwidth, the government would dictate many of these decisions, chilling competition, growth, and innovation. Historical data backs these claims up, showing that the less regulated broadband platform out-performs. Cable modem service, unburdened by "open access" mandates, spurted out to an early advantage. Then, when network sharing mandates on telephone networks were abruptly reduced, DSL surged. When DSL was regulated, network growth stagnated, but as soon as it was deregulated, DSL deployment took off. [2] Network sharing mandates were also imposed, and then eliminated, on fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) technology. Prior to the FCC's decision to eliminate fiber network "open access" rules," there was virtually no FTTH technology in the US. After deregulation, substantial investments were made, and now more than six million households subscribe to the Internet through ultra-fast fiber connections [3] 2. Net neutrality doesn't distinguish between procompetitive and anticompetitive practices. Entrepreneurs often experiment with new and different business models -- e.g. prioritize network traffic -- to lower prices and improve customer experience. For example, Lariat Wireless, a small ISP in Wyoming, forbids its customers from operating servers, to reduce network congestion and improve the overall experience for their users. Brett Glass, the CEO, explains: "most Internet users would not know what a server was if it bit them, and they have no problem uploading content to a Web site such as YouTube for distribution. This means customers that do need to operate a server could obtain that capability by paying a bit more to cover the additional cost." Under a net neutrality regime, however, Lariat Wireless would be forced to shift "everyone to the more expensive plan. We will therefore be less competitive, offer less value to consumers and especially less value to economically disadvantaged ones." [3] There are other examples. Universities that don't allow peer-to-peer file-sharing on their networks, for example. Or Virginia Broadband, which improves customer experience by prohibiting customers from "excessive" use of their network. Like Lariat Wireless, Virginia Broadband can offer quality Internet service at lower prices. The folks who benefit most are the "economically disadvantaged," and those who use the Internet sparingly. [4] Unregulated markets give entrepreneurs the latitude to experiment as such, producing procompetitive outcomes: more options, lower prices, and better quality services. A net neutrality requirement is a bad policy because it categorically condemns all discriminatory practices, without distinguishing the procompetitive from the anticompetitive. 3. Current antitrust laws are enough to protect consumers and competition. Over more than 100 years, antitrust laws have developed to protect consumers from anticompetitive business practices -- monopolization, collusion, price-fixing, etc. The main development in the antitrust laws has been a movement away from categorical rules (stuff like "all monopolies are bad") towards a more nuanced case-by-case approach. Instead of condemning business practices per se, courts require proof of harm to consumers or competition first. This approach is more nuanced, fact-based, and flexible, as well as being better for the economy by giving entrepreneurs latitude to experiment. The net neutrality debate turns on the idea that there are bottlenecks on the Internet which allow network owners to exercise market power. For example, if a local telephone company has a monopoly in broadband access and it blocks broadband subscribers from using an Internet phone service offered by a rival company, that could harm both competition and consumers. But that's a classic antitrust issue. And under the antitrust laws, the above business practice would be illegal under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. You don't need further regulation to deal with anticompetitive discrimination on the Internet. Indeed, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell notes 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." [6] There is simply no reason to prefer displacing the antitrust laws -- flexible, nuanced, fact-based enforcement -- with a rigid net neutrality regime. -- Net neutrality goes directly against most American consumers' values, such as competition, freedom of choice, and less government regulation. Evidence shows that the Internet has been marked by intense competition and rampant growth as a free and open market with light regulation. Historical data also suggests regulations stunt growth. All these reasons support antitrust enforcement over net neutrality regulations. References: [1] FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan 19 (Mar. 16, 2010), available at http://www.broadband.gov... [2] Thomas Hazlett and Joshua Wright, The Law and Economics of Net Neutrality (2012) [3] http:// www.ftthcouncil.org/en/content/the-growth-of-fiber-to-the-home [4] Ensuring Competition on the Internet: Net Neutrality and Antitrust: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Intellectual Prop., Competition, and the Internet of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 55 (2011) [5] http://www.ntia.doc.gov... and http://vabb.com... [6] In re Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Indus. Practices, 25 FCC Rcd. 17,905 (2010)

Title: net neutrality legislation Content: Privacy

Title: The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. Content: "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "network neutrality" obligations on broadband providers." http://www.msnbc.msn.com... == Net neutrality is the idea that access to content from the Internet should be of level playing to all consumers. That is, there is no means nor possibility for tiered speeds of access. Essentially the debate boils down to what is ISP property when dealing with the Internet and should these property owners have a say in how their property is used. While most of the code and communication protocols used to develop web pages are open sourced, i.e., free for use by the release into public domain, the physical components are decidedly not free. Servers, the specialised hardware that allows content to be available must be bought, owned and maintained. Likewise the infrastructure used by ISPs to allow access, the cables, satellites, wireless transmitters must be bought, owned, serviced and maintained. The servers, the ISPs, the end user at home, all use property, property that is rightfully owned, to cumulate in the experience of being able to access the Internet. It is decidedly not a free enterprise. The Internet is decidedly not a public domain, despite rhetoric to the opposite attempting to assert as such. ISPs build and maintain networks because they are profitable. It's why access speeds have increased through the use of new technology. Verizon, for example, is laying new fiber optic components at an estimated cost of 18 billion. http://seekingalpha.com... ISPs profit by charging Web content providers and Web surfers for access to their lines. These profits then go towards the increased infrastructure of the ISP, whether by expanding the reach or the upgrading of the infrastructure in place. It is precisely this system that allows the type of access and reach available now. Net neutrality seeks to undermine this. An ISPs infrastructure, their property, is theirs to use and profit from as they like. Net neutrality is quite simply, a call for private property violation. The Internet is not public property; the Internet is a system of privately owned personal computers, servers, cable and satellites. Because data is transmitted through private property, the call for net neutrality is an attack on the rightful ability of an ISP to use the property it owns as it sees fit. Under threat of government force, an ISP under net neutrality, must remain passive with regard to how data flows through the networks and lines they own. This includes web content providers who under FCC proposed legislation would not be charged differentially, regardless of the volume they bring. http://www.fee.org... http://www.netcompetition.org... ISPs are profit motivated. That is, they seek to formulate the best user experience for as many of its consumers as possible. By forcing an ISP to treat all data neutrally, the FCC and net neutrality advocates desire to prevent that ISP from enacting policies, offering services, and using technology in regards to its own judgements and business models. As such an ISP would be unable to offer services, or formulate policies that would be tailored to and beneficial for consumers (and from that beneficial to the ISP which in turn funnels back into consumer end usage). Certain real time applications benefit from smooth data flow e.g., streaming video, on-line gaming, VoIP or applications such as Skype. Under net neutrality such requirements from users cannot be tailored to consumers, that is, if net neutrality is in place, then all data is treated equal in terms of priority, which includes data that does not require streaming e.g., email (for example a hospital wishing to invest in a package that allows high quality video streaming for operations would be disallowed under most models of net neutrality - at best at non discriminatory policy based FCC approved rates i.e., not tailored). An unregulated ISP has the ability to offer tailored services to those who need it. Net neutrality says nay and that an ISP must treat all users as equal regardless of usage or consumer desire; in other words, all data must be treated equally regardless of content. It really is no different than paying for premium cable TV services, express mail delivery and the like. The fears that net neutrality advocates bring are unfounded. The call for net neutrality is nothing more than the call for ISPs to be public servants of the population they sought to provide value for. Let's say you have a website which you just bought called debate.org. It is very important to you, and you are willing to pay a premium price to your ISP to get a prioritised connection which makes the site load faster. Should you be able to purchase such priority service from an ISP? Net neutrality of course says no. Net neutrality simply stifles the idea of a consumer base of contractual arrangements between those seeking value for value. == 1. Net neutrality will encourage and protect innovation and competition That unregulated Internet will stifle competition is found false simply through the rise of Internet use itself i.e., an unregulated Internet is what brought such ventures mentioned to the fore to begin with. The ability for an ISP to tailor access to consumer bases is irrelevant to any one enterprising idea. Servers are not ISPs, servers must likewise rent to ISPs to allow access to their content - no process that invokes suppression of services there. The fear mongering completely ignores that ISPs must run as a business under competing enterprises and that supplying services to customer bases is in their best interest. Providing for mass end users is simply good business practice and nothing about a deregulated Internet changes that. What net neutrality will do however is stifle those services that require or show preference to high quality streaming - streaming that many services use, streaming that many people are probably willing to pay premium access for. Claims of flexibility are likewise false, since the FCC policies are precisely designed to enforce static methods. 2. Internet Protocol Standards Such protocols are open for use, design and improvement by anyone. It is unrelated to ISP management of data transfer. Enforcing a static system is anathema to network advancement, explicitly contrary to your prior point. Many protocol standards are already inherently error prone, net neutrality will not change this. It will stifle the ability of ISPs to invest in for example, CO-mode. http://www.netcompetition.org... 3. Free exchange of information, and rights of the consumer Nothing about deregulated Internet implies ISPs will act like China. They have no reason to censor information. The FCC under net neutrality however can. As for ISPs that monitor traffic, that is irrelevant to net neutrality. It is simply a contractual issue between end user and service provider. Comcast throttled torrents because the video downloads took up a large % of bandwidth which affected non bittorrent users. AT&T reports 5% of users using > 50% of bandwidth capability. ISPs property the traffic is being sent through, so their right to prioritise data. Doing so allowed them to not increase fees to cover otherwise resulting costs. http://www.infoworld.com...

Title: The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. Content: "Small chunks of arguments were taken." No. My quotation only serves to orient the reader to the relevant paragraph. If a reader wants to read the whole paragraph they can in your round. It doesn't serve my needs to undercut my character count by spamming your statements. "This was in an attempt to create the illusion of this case being completely torn apart." No. It's how I debate. Fallacies are called out for the fallacies they are. "had the definition of net neutrality shifted to try to invalidate the argument" You defined it round R1. Your definition was not 'all concerns I have about the Internet ever' - Your definition dealt with data transfer, "send and receive". I expounded the relevance of that, you never challenged that at all. The resolution includes USG, that means the FCC and what the FCC talks about in regards to net neutrality. I provided numerous sources that detailed what net neutrality actually is, especially as it relates to the FCC, and constitutional law. It is not my problem that you are apparently largely unaware of what net neutrality advocates actually propose. You are the one that went tangential to the definition into a number of irrelevancies relating to net neutrality such as data mining profiles. The definition didn't allow it. The FCC proposals have nothing to do with the tangential arguments you made, nor do net neutrality advocates when they talk of net neutrality. It is an issue of preferencing data transmission over other data. I suggest you read the FCC report itself aka "the solution in search of the problem". Turning net neutrality amorphously into 'all concerns' as you appear want, simply destroys any definition being valid at all. The definition you gave was fully compliant with the arguments I made, and what the FCC proposal was and is. The issue is you attempting to extend it beyond the scope of net neutrality. It is, in the FCC's own words, that "discrimination" should be barred. That means, the inability of ISPs to freely offer preferential services, to be freely paid for by consumers. hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf "send and receive packets using the Internet in a way that is indifferent to the contents, source or destination of the packets." Despite denying what I claim, and despite attempting to utilise that definition otherwise, it's quite clear that what it *does* detail is prohibition of preferential treatment. As explained numerous times already, preferential treatment relates the content access of the data being transmitted, or in the FCC's words "To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice ... to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network". It is exactly the proposal, as argued, that net neutrality seeks to deny the ability of ISPs to tailor bandwidth priority. Corollary to that (that's why it doesn't need to be spelt out), is the prohibition for an ISP to offer services that lead to differential treatment of data (see your definition again) in relation to bandwidth speed and services. It absurdly clear what the intent is, because the FCC attempted to prosecute Comcast for exactly doing that. To state that that is not net neutrality requires a gross equivocation. "In doing so, my opponent has granted the arguments on a technical basis, opposing them only morally on the basis of the private property argument." False dichotomy. The issue you consistently ignored is that it is *private property* which means any technical formulations must *first* be reconciled within that framework. It does not make your argument valid simply because I didn't argue 'technology will X' - if you read R1 & R2 I addressed the tech arguments separately anyway, namely, the concerns of protocols and data transfer issues is one in which an unregulated Internet has dealt with since its inception. Nothing about a regulated Internet will change that, other than the availability of the FCC to invalidate new protocols as it would by necessity related back to differential data transfer. Unregulated, the Internet is free to have developers change, advance, advocate and try to implement whatever new protocol procedures they please. Under net neutrality, it's questionable. All it does is bring us back to the infamous quip "a solution in search of a problem". "The end-to-end design of the Internet needs to be preserved" Contradicts your prior assertions they are free to develop then doesn't it? Again nothing about an ISP or developers is enhanced by reducing the availability of data access. Again, consistently ignored. "ISPs have motivation to grant multi-billion dollar companies favored treatment over smaller enterprises" No they don't. They can afford to do both. Charge for both. Companies require servers, no matter the size, which means ISPs charging differentiated rates. Under net neutrality proposals, servers can't be charged differential rates i.e., property violation. "will be in the hands of a handful of large companies" Equivocation. Data is transferred across property, that is what the Internet is. Nothing about net neutrality changes that unless you wish to argue full nationalisation, which you didn't. "The Internet is a egalitarian, decentralized system for the free exchange of information." False. It is a system of interconnected private property developed by largely open source procedures. Try using the Internet without any recourse to private property. "when a company sells plans that they cannot deliver on" Contractual issues are contractual issues. Net neutrality doesn't change the nature of what a contract is. What it does is deny an ISP to tailor them in certain ways. Again, the data was being transmitted across their property. The bandwidth hog meant that prioritisation needed to occur no matter, it's not an infinite resource, so of course they chose the small % who were the ones using >50% of availability. "I point to the definition of net neutrality" Which is irrelevant to whether net neutrality will stifle the ability of profit motives. Which it will. I'm not sure what about preferential data transfer, which you refer to numerous times in regards to bittorrent, being disallowed, doesn't relate to net neutrality being about preferential data transfer. "is in response to his argument of the inability to tailor access to consumer needs." Irrelevant. A user being able to preference one service over the other is no where near analogous to an ISP offering premium bandwidth services to that user. Just like deciding whether to post a letter today or tomorrow isn't analogous to having an express mail service available or not. "This is the motivation of companies." If this was the case we would see see a vastly different Internet experience than the one we do. Asserting your position with no real relation to how the Internet is run at all doesn't help. Hence "the solution in search of a problem". "You ignored the giant pipeline" What about "infrastructure" evaded you? "more profit" Profit from denying profit making exercises? "we must protect the Internet from being exploited." The Internet is not a "thing" in this sense. Violation of contract is related to contract law. "buying that package from the ISP" You pay for access to their lines to transmit/receive - not a portion of their lines in the form of property. Government violating property for another citizen's 'good' is arbitrary. The grounds to do so are not valid just by crying 'exploitation' - there is nothing exploitative about valid contracts between user and provider. All it is is an attempt to ignore that an ISP is private property, validly so, and that right to use private property, including mutual agreement to mutual benefit, exists.

Title: Insert topic here. Content: My opponent will be going first, so just for this argument, I will outline the basics of what net neutrality is for my opponent and the audience: "Net Neutrality": A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, on the modes of communication allowed, which does not restrict content, sites or platforms, and where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams (wikipedia/google) Basically, with net neutrality, a company cannot charge extra for access to certain parts parts of the internet, and they can't intentionally slow down the access to the net, only to charge more for the freer speed. However, this net neutrality only causes more government restrictions on the system, and may lower competition and capitalism, the basis for our national economy. My opponent will be going first, good luck.

Title: Net neutrality "replaces technological solutions with bureaucratic oversight. Content: We may see an Internet future not quite as bright as we need, with less investment, less innovation and more congestion.

Title: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Content: Network Neutrality -Network neutrality, or net neutrality as it is more commonly known, is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differently by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or modes of communication. Essentially, the stance that ISP’s (Internet Service Providers, such as Comcast, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc.) shouldn’t be able to charge users based on what sites they want access to, what type of content they view, whether or not they play online games that use high amounts of content, etc. One of the foremost arguments proponents of net neutrality present is that of an open internet. - Open Internet-where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those on the Internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party. -Closed Internet-where established corporations or governments favor certain uses; may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content. [1, 2, 3] In this debate, I am going to clearly show that net neutrality does not, in fact, result in a more open internet, but actually takes steps towards a closed internet. 1. Net Neutrality Stifles Innovation -Net neutrality proponents rally to phrases like “equal treatment” and “ending discrimination in transmitting content,” all of which sound positive, but in reality threaten innovation, efficiency, and the expansion of Internet access. -First, is simply isn’t accurate to treat all Internet content equally. An online calculator, a funny home video, and an e-Book all use similar amounts of Internet space comparably, yet are obviously not equal in importance, and should not be treated as such. Second, what precisely does it mean to ‘end discrimination in transmitting content?’ Net neutrality proponents would argue that to be able to charge more for one type of content than another is discrimination. Once again, it is often the case that the contents ARE different, and thus rightfully treated so. Playing PTP (peer-to-peer) games online use massively greater amounts of content than does, say, a simply Google search; net neutrality would treat the two of these equally. So, for example, let’s say we have a house with six people, all of whom share the same Internet. Four of them love playing PTP games, to the point where the other two house members cannot even complete a simple Google search without their Internet being obscenely slow because of the other four members. Now let’s expand this example to an entire community. ISP’s being able to charge based on the amount of content users consume simply means that consumers are paying proportional to what they want, instead of everyone paying the same amount but using disproportionate amounts of content. -In fact, similar regulations are in place in Europe. The result can be clearly seen: they have raised prices and limited consumer access to the Internet. And make no mistake, this isn’t because the service is better over there; broadband services are significantly cheaper in the US despite the fact that we already provide high-speed service at more than double the rate of European countries [4]. Quite simply, regulations stifle the market and economy. What net neutrality is pushing for will result in regulation levels on technology companies on par with that on water and telephone companies, eliminating their ability to innovate in the market. 2. Net Neutrality Actually Stifles Freedom of Speech -Another argument presented by defenders of net neutrality is that it ‘protects freedom of speech’ through unrestricted Internet access. This is patently false; first off, a lack of net neutrality hasn’t caused a restriction of freedom of speech. Allowing ISP’s to charge differing amounts for different amounts of usage is not going to restrict the freedom of speech of users; you don’t have to pay for content levels for PTP games in order to post online or send an email (the ‘freedom of speech’ claimed to be violated without net neutrality). -Second, anyone claiming that new net neutrality regulations through the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) will result in ‘greater freedom of speech’ is frankly either lying or greatly deluded. The FCC isn’t exactly in the business of promoting freedom of speech. In fact, they do quite the opposite-the FCC censors content it feels inappropriate, harmful, and virtually anything else it decides it doesn’t want available. The FCC has never and will never stand for freedom of speech. Net neutrality regulations simply give the FCC, and subsequently the government, more control over the Internet and what exactly is available to us. In the pursuit of a freer Internet, we would actually be creating a less free one. An extreme example of this is China’s strict regulation of communication companies, which has choked off many citizen’s Internet access and significantly reformed the Internet available to the rest. Swiss analyst Gianluigi Negro argues that “under the guise of allegedly ensuring a free and open Internet, some Americans may unwittingly be on the road to ceding power to forces that can use the Internet against them, as is seen in China every day” [5]. Don’t misunderstand, this is not to suggest that the institution of network neutrality laws will have the immediate or definite result of turning America into a communistic nation. However, each new network neutrality law creates an even stronger precedent for government control and regulation of the Internet and subsequent available content. 3. Net Neutrality Infringes On Competition -Advocates of net neutrality such as Lawrence Lessig have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even to block out competitors [6]. A common example of this is Comcast’s blocking of torrenting sites which sport pirated content [7]. It is also argued that by allowing ISP’s to block out competitors from their users, we are promoting monopolies. -First, it is the prerogative of ISP’s to block illegal and pirated content. In fact, arguing this as a supporting factor for net neutrality is quite ludicrous, as the FCC and government at large is greatly engaged in the prevention of piracy. Thus, ISP’s pursuing this on their own independent of government regulation is rather beneficial to the FCC and society. -Second, in terms of promoting monopolies, it really doesn’t. Net neutrality laws are not going to eliminate monopolies such as Comcast; anti-trust regulations would be required for that. Really all net neutrality does is make it harder for startup communication companies just entering the market to become successful, actually hardening monopolies in the long run. Further, it is entirely within the scope of a company/ISP to restrict access to competitor’s content or specific sites it doesn’t want to give access to. In fact, it’s good business, and common in the marketplace. Further, such restrictions by monopolies or large ISP’s actually makes the dissolution of monopolies more likely, as smaller startup companies would receive more subscribers and users as they became more restricted by the larger providers. In the end, the market regulates itself better than the FCC can possibly hope to. -It is important to note that a lack of net neutrality laws doesn’t infringe on the consumers access to Internet. It simply means they pay for the access they want. Whatever access they don’t have, they aren’t paying for. Sources: [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] - http://www.savetheinternet.com... [3] - http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu... [4] - https://ec.europa.eu... [5] - http://www.nationalreview.com...= [6] - http://www.technologyreview.com... [7] - https://torrentfreak.com...

Title: Ensuring net neutrality represents excessive government regulation and control over business. Content: Businesses should be allowed to control their products as they please, since they created and invested in them. Instead of creating more problems for the economy and businesses by regulating it, the government should give these companies freedom and allow them to make their own decisions. “Telecommunications companies, having invested billions of dollars from consumers and government subsidies in new network infrastructure, claim the right under U.S. law to operate the network with minimal government interference.” [[http://www.imprintmagazine.org/life_and_style/digital_divide_issue_net_neutrality?page=0,1]]

Title: Net neutrality. Content: No It does not, I have spoon fed you reasons to why it is not, but you do not make a rebuttal to my claims. Therefore it is obvious you could not make a rebuttal to my argument in any of the rounds. I recommend you learn how debating works, rather than just saying what you think without any supporting evidence.

Title: Net neutrality prevents discrimination between sites Content: "Access and the Internet." New York Times Editorial. August 29, 2009": "On the Internet today, a Web site run by a solo blogger can load as quickly as any corporate home page. Internet service providers, including leading cable and phone companies, want to be able to change that so they can give priority to businesses that pay, or make deals with, them. [...] A good bill that would guarantee so-called net neutrality has been introduced in the House. Congress should pass it, and the Obama administration should use its considerable power to make net neutrality the law."

Title: The US shouldn't require net neutrality. Content: What Pro is failing to understand is that you can either have or not have net neutrality. There is no 'in between'. So therefore by not requiring net neutrality, it is the same as banning it, for you will still have less competition, small businesses, innovation, and privacy without REQUIRING net neutrality. REFUTES 1) An unregulated Internet is better than a regulated Internet. My opponent was stating that a good internet is "shaped by intense competition and rampant growth". But judge, as I mentioned, net neutrality will HELP! It will lead to more competition, innovation, and small businesses. This will help our economy and the growth of the Internet, which therefore turns this point invalid. 2) Net Neutrality doesn't distinguish between pro competitive and anticompetitive practices. Judge, this point is basically that it will be harming all discriminatory practices. But here is why this is not a concern - we have been working with net neutrality for years, and it has increased the global market and been beneficial for our economy and businesses . So whether or not there is no difference between the quoted 'discriminatory practices' there will be a benefit for the people, and therefore it is worth it. 3) Current antitrust laws are enough to protect consumers and competition. They are NOT! Not having net neutrality would actually harm competition, because by giving big ISPs the power to block their competitors' websites, people would not have access to more than one big service without paying more r,many therefore there would be no need for competing. According to Forbes, if there was no net neutrality, many businesses would not exist die to the lack of competition. And it would hurt the consumers to not have this as well. Without net neutrality, your internet providers will be able to charge you EXTREMELY high prices for a free and open Internet, which is one of the greatest privileges of our time. So by having much higher prices, and lower quality service, not having net neutrality will hurt us, the consumers. Therefore, this point is false and invalid. SOURCES 1) http://www.theopeninter.net... 2) http://www.theguardian.com... 3) http://www.nytimes.com... 4) http://www.forbes.com... 5) http://www.economist.com... 6) http://www.latimes.com... 7) http://www.latimes.com... 8) http://www.latimes.com... CONCLUSION Seeing as I have refuted all of the Proposition's points, I will now weigh this debate. Here is why I should win: Who I agreed with before: This is up to you, so I cannot influence that decision. Who I agreed with after: I hope this is me, because my arguments were the most understandable and impacting to the average American. Spelling and Grammar: Tie Conduct: Tie Best Arguments: I believe that this should be me as well because unless you are an extreme techie, you probably could not understand Pro's arguments. However, I did my best to put my information into short, easy to understand arguments that should be easily comprehended, also, I gave impact analysis for every one of my points, showing you as a judge why my points should effect you, therefore leaving my points more convincing than Pro's. Sources: Finally, most of Pro's sources were simply without a link, leaving them valid. Also, she used Wikipedia, which is invalid and unreliable, seeing as anybody can edit it with false information, showing that my sources are more reliable. NYT, Forbes, The Guardian, are all reliable and highly acclaimed sources, unlike Wikipedia. Thanks to Pro for a very interesting and informative debate, and I strongly urge a Con vote for this motion.

Title: Net neutrality provides for the free circulation of data and services. Content: Today, anyone can create a website for very little money and fill it with whatever they want. For a lucky few, their website provides information or services that the public generally likes. They share their website with friends and over social media, word catches on, they place some key advertisements with GoogleAds and elsewhere on the internet, they create some solid SEO content and, before long, they're rolling in internet gold and glory. Striking down net neutrality will cut the fanfare short. Writing to Congress in 2005, Vice President of Google and inventor of the Internet Protocol, Vint Cerf argued that: "The Internet is based on a layered, end-to-end model that allows people at each level of the network to innovate free of any central control … a lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive. Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online." This kind of freedom that the anti-net neutrality crowd is after has not existed in any industry in the U.S. since the Gilded Age, when the likes of John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan exercised monopolistic control over their respective industries to keep the playing field stacked in their favor. Mark Fiore describes this with a Dr. Seuss-esque cartoon.

Title: Net Neutrality Content: Net Neutrality is freedom of speech. With Net neutrality in place it creates an equal playing field for everyone one. This means that if an ISP doesn't like something they can't do anything to block it. So how does this help us consumers? If you are researching a topic you wont only see one side to it just because your ISP supports it, you will be able to look at both sides and determine what you think is right. Removing Net Neutrality is taking away your freedom of speech which can cause some issues. Propaganda will become a thing on the internet if Net neutrality is take away.

Title: Net neutrality. Content: No, you have shared your opinion. Net neutrality means a neutral internet.

Title: Net neutrality maintains a free market and even playing field Content: Since the Progressive Era, the United States has not harbored a true capitalism. For some weird reason a laissez-faire market leads to massive wealth inequality, exploitation of lower class workers, and gives unbridled power to the super wealthy. While we haven't exactly succeeded in solving that problem, we have introduced regulations to help even the playing field and create conditions such that businesses of any size have an improved chance of getting off the ground. Internet business is no different. Before any website loomed large, it was just a small, struggling startup. Remove net neutrality, and you will remove the even playing field that allows new companies to get a foothold.

Title: The US shouldn't require net neutrality. Content: Judge, is it fair to let certain internet companies only allow people with similar political views, or block their competitors sites? Is it fair to let big companies invade your privacy and crush small businesses? If you answered "no" to any of these questions, judge, then you technically agree with me on the fact that net neutrality is good. 1) Net neutrality stimulates competition. Judge, if we ban net neutrality the big ISPs, or Internet Service Providers, would be able to block competitor"s websites. That way the big companies would be unable to compete with each other because people could not access more than one big service without paying more, and therefore there would be no need for competing. According to the New York Times, competition stimulates innovation, or the invention of new products, which we will not get without net neutrality. According to Forbes, if net neutrality didn"t exist, many small internet providers would not exist due to the lack of competition. Nobody would be competing with each other so nobody would want to switch to new providers. The impact of this, judge, is that with no competition there will be a lot less innovation, which means less ideas and new products. This will impact the ENTIRE population, because they all rely on new technology and keeping up with the fast pace of innovation. 2) Net neutrality helps small businesses. Judge, if we ban net neutrality internet providers will be able to pick which sites show up first, and ban or block websites that they don"t want their customers to see. Small businesses will not be top priority on these providers" lists and may even be banned, therefore leaving them unable to get off of the ground. According to the New York Times, Google was a small buisness built in a GARAGE. It is now a huge thing that has advanced technology greatly. However, without net neutrality, the next Google will not be able to make it. According to Marvin Ammori, a technology expert and Yale professor, if there were to be no net neutrality, high class providers such as Comcast and Verizon could sell special treatment to their favorite web companies like Google and Netflix, and charge extra fees to deliver their online videos and other content at fast speeds. However, it could block small websites with things so trivial as opposing political views and the sites that show up first after a search will OBVIOUSLY be the favorites of the ISPs", and the small businesses that may be more relevant to the search will be left in the dust. The impact of this, Judge, is that without small businesses, any new ideas, such as Google, will not be able to move past the special treatment of ISPs and will forever remain unheard. And just like our point on competition, no new ideas means less innovation, which affects the ENTIRE population. 3) Not having net neutrality would mean an invasion of your privacy. Judge, let me explain this to you. People like to encrypt, or code, many things, from emails to personal information like credit card numbers. However, according to the Economist, without net neutrality the FCC has no rules against decrypting this information. Because of the fact they they want complete control over everything they use in their service, big internet providers will have the power to decode any encryptions placed by their customers. Judge, this means they have access to YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION! This is a HUGE invasion of privacy! Access to this type of thing should be very limited, and your information should be only visible to you. How can we let our privacy be invaded like that, Judge? We have the right of privacy, as stated in the Constitution, and we cannot allow this to be taken away by ISP companies? And not only that, but to give you better results internet companies can literally track and watch everything you do online. The impact of this judge, is greater than anything possible! It impacts nearly every adult on this planet! All these people, judge, will have access to anything they want. The only other people on this planet with that type of power are high up government officials, and even THEY need a search warrant. In conclusion, if you want a more innovative, successful economy, and more privacy and free speech on the Internet, AND less discrimination between big ISP companies, then vote for Con and support Net Neutrality. SOURCES 1) http://www.theopeninter.net... 2) http://www.theguardian.com... 3) http://www.nytimes.com... 4) http://www.forbes.com... 5) http://www.economist.com... 6) http://www.latimes.com... 7) http://www.latimes.com... 8) https://www.eff.org...

Title: Net Neutrality Content: I believe that Net Neutrality is important for the internet because it makes sure that the internet stays a free market. Corporations should not dictate how we use the internet and should not be able to choose the winners on the internet. Thanks for being respectful and a great person to do my first debate with you. I wish you best of luck on your future endeavors. December 17 2017 7:35 PM

Title: Net Neutrality Is a Horrible Idea Content: Rules: No ad hominem fallacy Keep the debate civil Definitions: Net Neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

Title: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Content: I accept.

Title: WODC: This House Believes That Provisions of Internet Services Should be a Public Utility Content: Framework I believe my opponent is confused. We are not debating net neutrality. Now I've already spent a bit of time defining the other major terms to give us a better ideal of what we're debating. According to Wikipedia; "Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication." http://en.m.wikipedia.org... While a public utility is; "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." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... This debate isn't about whether net neutrality is a good thing. The purpose of the debate is to determine whether or not provisions of Internet services (service providers), should be considered a public utility. As I've pointed out, they should be considered a utility, based on the fact that they meet the definition of utility, via the barrier to entry as well as the benefit to society for them to be regulated in that way. My opponent despite being off topic, has raised a few arguments which are vaguely relevant to the topic we are debating, and will be addressed accordingly. Now I urge my opponent to figure out a way to make some relevant arguments as well as rebuttals in the next round, if he doesn't he risks not being able to make any at all. The rules of the debate make it clear there are to be no new arguments in the final round. Contention 1: Unregulated Market is better than a Regulated market for the internet. My opponent makes kind of a false dichotomy, between a regulated and unregulated market. Before getting into specifics of what's wrong with his Arguments, let's examine more than just this dichotomy. There are many different types of regulated and unregulated markets. Some forms of regulated market work better than unregulated markets and visa versa. The real options we have when looking at these ISP/utilities is this: Unregulated Monopolized Markets- These markets are bad for consumers, but good for the companies. They get to dictate the prices, and the quality of service. This is the situation we have in America and as you can see it results in higher prices for consumers and bad service. I showed the lower broadband speeds as well as higher prices that these companies charge compared to overseas markets with either good regulation or a good amount of competition. (See round 2). http://www.theverge.com... 2. Unregulated Free Market Lots of Competition- This is an ideal scenario. Unfortunately as I've shown in the previous round. The market had been pretty deeply penetrated,the startup costs are immense and it takes a ton of time to see a profit. This is one of those businesses that are high risk, with low chance of reward. As somebody who is in love with free markets, I'd love to see perfect competition, but as I've shown in the previous round, that's not what is occurring, nor is it even possible to make it occur with a deregulation of the market, because of the costs associated with doing business and the deeply imbedded companies that are already there. 3. A Well Regulated Industry- there is no perfect solution to problems, but treating ISPs as the utilities they are, deals with the reality that a free market won't work in this specific scenario. It follows the example of other countries and utilities of times past, which have been shown to provide more reliable service at a cheaper price. Having some checks and balances to insure quality of service as well as value of service will help consumers immensely. Finally consumers will be on equal ground with ISPs. Finally America can have Internet service and strength that rivals that of third world countries. "We can see that Entrapenuers have been free to do as they please and they have set reasonable prises and entry fees for the consumer." This is simply untrue and merely rhetoric from my opponent, taken from the word of some industry insider, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I said it in the last round and I'll say it again. Out of 40 countries, the United States has been shown to have the slowest internet speeds and often for double the price. http://www.theverge.com... What the free market has gotten us is spit on by these companies. Comcast is the most hated company in the United States and yet people are still forced to pay for an inferior service at double the rate of their brethren in the UK. When my opponent puts a positive spin on Internet service by saying that it's improved a lot in the last ten years, he is merely putting on rose colored goggles. Who cares how much it improved? It's not keeping up with it's rivals in more regulated markets overseas and it's merely because they don't have to care. "it"s for this reason alone that the US has the fastest internet in the world, but Net Neutrality is threatening to change all of that." This is clearly false. I've cited sources that show the United States has slower internet speeds than the much of the rest of the world, and at more of a cost to boot. This debate isn't about net neutrality, but I can tell you we've seen the bill passed in the United States and I've yet to see my service change at all. "FiberBroadband Community, an internet provided in the Great Lakes region reported that under net neutrality that they would be forced to move ALL of their customers to a more expensive plan and this would hurt the business as it would cost them more" My only response to this is "yeah duh". The company is looking out for it's best interest. They make out better when they're unregulated. The consumers aren't necessarily better off not the industry, but they are. A company merely stating it will cost extra without showing why is just throwing hail Marie's to stop a bill they no will cut into their pocket books, but ultimately be better for the people. The company's claim should be ignored, unless they find some way to substantiate it. Status Quo Antitrust Lawsuit The antitrust laws simply aren't working. Comcast in particular has no real competition. The FCC is powerless. I've already shown several stats that prove that a monopoly exists in terms of ISPs in several locations effecting over 70% of the United States, but it's worse than that and I'll let the FCC chairman tell you in his own words. "competition for high-speed wired broadband is lacking and Americans need more competitive choices for faster and better Internet connections, both to take advantage of today's new services, and to incentivize the development of tomorrow's innovations."....."At 25 Mbps, there is simply no competitive choice for most Americans,"...."Stop and let that sink in. Three-quarters of American homes have no competitive choice for the essential infrastructure for 21st century economics and democracy. Included in that is almost 20 percent who have no service at all." http://www.nationaljournal.com...

Title: Net neutrality laws. Content: I'll keep this short. If we don't have net neutrality companies can block or slow down websites if they don't pay a bribe. It would kill start up companies and not make the internet the fair platform it is. Companies could kill there competitors and kill competition. Also you fail at making debates impossible to accept.

Title: W/o Net Neutrality, price discrimination risks stifling start-ups Content: Robin Chase. "Zipcar-Like Data Innovation Counts on Neutral" Bloomberg Government. March 03, 2011: "Without the Internet (and wireless data transmission), Zipcar could not have become a mainstream service. It would not exist. Incredibly, this fundamental asset is in serious jeopardy in America, putting at risk our ability to innovate and to compete. The U.S. House of Representatives is trying to block the Federal Communications Commission from implementing a network neutrality order it issued in December. If the House action is successful, it will put small entrepreneurs at a disadvantage because we can’t pay the tolls for faster speeds and quality of service that the big guys can, and it may help them create groups of users that we can’t access at all. We could not compete."

Title: Net neutrality Content: First you again say Net neutrality is new and the internet is awesome and don't change it. Again Net neutrality has always existed. Google it. It hasn't been a law it has been a founding principle of the internet. If you would do research for 5 minutes and stopped listening to Alex Jones you would know that. Then You say it's true in many places you only have one ISP but that's not there fault. You just proved my point it doesn't matter who's fault it is it still happens and kills you're free market answer. Then you say I want government regulation. To a very limited extent yes. I want them to say you can't discriminate data because you don't like it , or they aren't paying you a bribe, or because it competes with them. Next you say me claiming they buy people off and that there are loopholes are unfounded. Well they can buy off politicians to not pass laws that limit them like oil companies do. As for loopholes You do a deal. For example pretend in the state of Texas there are two companies. A and B you're argument is they will compete with each other for the consumers. In reality they make a deal to be the only ISP in a city so people have to buy from them. Next you say it's bad for the economy. No it's good for the economy in fact it's good for free market capitalism which you are in favor of. Because people can start businesses and offer goods for a lower price without being blocked unfairly or having to pay a huge bribe which hurts there business. Without net neutrality Amazon and Ebay could pay AT&T to block other online shopping sites which kills competition. Then you say it prevents internet experimentation no it doesn't as it helps the free market as I just explained. Then you mention one of the guys on the FCC saying the threat of companies blocking content is not a problem. Because he was being payed my Version and Comcast again google it. Lastly you mention all these things that where invented and that's why Net neutrality is bad. But that couldn't have happened without net neutrality because it could have been blocked from being advertised. Just remember this all came around with Net neutrality in place. In the end though this debate doesn't matter. The FCC passed net neutrality. The consumers won and the internet is better off for it.

Title: Net neutrality prevents anti-competitive acts by network owners Content: "Protect Net neutrality." St. Petersburg Times Editorial. April 10, 2010: "Without Net neutrality rules, the big telecommunications and cable providers could decide to start charging Web sites for faster delivery or prefer content providers associated with their own conglomerates. This would crush innovation and competition by giving the biggest companies the ability to nudge smaller start-ups out of view."

Title: Net neutrality is required to preserve the existing structure of the internet. Content: Like Vince Cert, who maintained that the beauty of the internet lies in its ability to move the same amounts of information around at the same speed at all levels of the internet, many believe that the internet will cease to exist as we know it if a biased net takes over. This is what is known as the end-to-end principle. The end-to-end principle allows the internet to expand infinitely. Because all data travels at the same speed and is treated the same, all aspects of the internet are open to innovation equally. Let's say that, for some reason, digital banking was prioritized by either the government or cable companies. This would then draw the most attention from internet users, it would be the fastest activity on the internet, and if would be innovators wished to get involved in the field, they would flock to some aspect of digital banking. There is always a finite amount of broadband capability on planet Earth, and because digital banking was preferred, other facets of the internet would slow. Some believe that this would throw off the entire balance of the internet, and certain areas would become backwaters while others would draw the focus of everyone. The end-to-end principle has proven an excellent quality in several American systems and institutions. It is present, for example, in our slightly regulated and hopefully even-fielded economy. In their 2000 essay "Open Access to Cable Modems," Mark Lemley and Laurence Lessig write: [t]he principle of End-to-End is not unique to computer networks. It has important analogs in American constitutional law and in other legal contexts. Vis-A-vis the states, for example, the dormant commerce clause imposes an End-to-End design on the flow of commerce: No state is to exercise a control over the flow of commerce between states; and the kind of control that a state may exercise over commerce flowing into that state is severely limited. The "network" of interstate commerce is to be influenced at its ends-by the consumer and producer-and not by intermediary actors (states) who might interfere with this flow for their own political purposes. Vis-A-vis transportation generally, End-to-End is also how the principle of common carriage works. The carrier is not to exercise power to discriminate in the carriage. So long as the toll is paid, it must accept the carriage that it is offered. In both contexts, the aim is to keep the transportation layer of intercourse simple, so as to enable the multiplication of applications at the end. Stripping away net neutrality is about more than allowing the cable companies to get bigger and richer. It's about maintaining values and consistency in our world.

Title: Net neutrality regulates service providers, not Internet Content: "Net Neutrality is Simple, Conservative Consumer Protection." Public Knowledge on Opposing Views.com: Net Neutrality "is not regulating the Internet. It is regulating the companies which provide access to the Internet – a traditional function that the FCC has largely abandoned to the detriment of the country."

Title: Insert topic here. Content: Straight into contentions: 1) Net neutrality would go against the idea of a free market. Obviously in our capitalist society, we are free to form whatever companies we wish and attempt to market our idea to the general public. The same would go for ISP's; why limit the serviceability of a company? Net neutrality essentially neutralizes every ISP, making all companies provide the same network, and eliminating competition and the idea of capitalism. 2) No ISP can force everyone to have a slow network, so "net 'inequality'" is not a problem. Because we are a capitalist economy, a company is allowed to try whatever marketing ideas they wish. Since there is more than one ISP, the consumers are free to choose the one that pleases them. If an ISP slows down that consumer's internet to make them pay for speed, then that person will simply switch providers. That's all for now: I negate that "Net neutrality should be made into law and enforced", because it goes against the idea of capitalism and is unnecessary.

Title: net neutrality Content: Net neutrality is very important for the nation, as it does not allow bigger companies like Google or ebay to make their network faster and slow down other smaller networks

Title: Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Content: Net neutrality provides for the free circulation of data and services.

Title: Net Neutrality Content: I'd posit that perhaps such a majority of Americans are only serviced by one internet provider simply because there is no reason for another company to move in. If that company should begin to deny access to certain websites, and there is a substantial demand for said websites, I think this would cause more diversity in providers. A crucial part of my argument, however, I think has gone unaddressed by you. Even given that there is a true monopoly, and there are people who are unable to get access to some number of websites, I do not see that as a crime. If that company were not there, those people would be without internet access anyhow. Access to any--let alone every--website on the internet is a service, it is not a right; therefore to be denied it is not in anyway a crime. I think you overlooked this in your response. I'd also like to suggest some possible advantages to not enforcing Net Neutrality. If companies are allowed to select which websites they provide access to, they can craft internet packages more tailored to specific consumers. For example, they can produce a childrens' package, with access to only kid-friendly websites, or a cheaper business package, with only access to an employee's company websites. Liberals can sell packages with only liberal websites, conservatives packages with only conservative websites. I think that a producer has the right to determine exactly what sort of product he produces, and to what sort of customer he provides it to.

Title: Net Neutrality Content: My Argument:First, I would like to mention what Net Neutrality means once again. -Net Neutrality (n) : the principle that basic Internet protocols should be non-discriminatory, esp. thatcontent providers should get equal treatment from Internet operators SOURCE: (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)Secondly, I want to say that the FCC's decision to put restrictions on streaming services via the IPSs would impede on the success of newer start-ups. This would make the start-ups, who barely has enough money to pay the ISPs to stream their content faster. This would most likely slow down their success or stop it completely in its tracks. Thirdly, this is a violation of the first amendment. That right there is enough to throw this decision away.

Title: Net neutrality forces network owners to operate in suboptimal ways Content: "Editorial: Net neutrality not so neutral." An Orange County Register. September 25th, 2009: "to bring about a utopian desire for virtually unlimited access over a limited resource, government would require broadband providers to operate in ways not necessarily in the best interest of the companies or their paying customers."

Title: The US shouldn't require net neutrality. Content: Tim Wu, the guy who coined the term "net neutrality," notes the importance of "differentiat[ing] sharply between the principle of network neutrality and a network neutrality law." This debate isn't about the principle of net neutrality. This debate is about whether the US should adopt a net neutrality law. I'm not arguing against net neutrality as a principle. I'm arguing that the US shouldn't adopt a net neutrality law. Con's arguments are aimed against banning net neutrality. I agree with Con that banning net neutrality is bad for competition and small businesses. There is no debate there. The debate here is whether net neutrality should be required, not whether it should be banned. 1. Con says "net neutrality stimulates competition" because, "if we ban net neutrality the big ISPs ... would be able to block competitor's websites. That way the big companies would be unable to compete with each other because people could not access more than one big service without paying more, and therefore there would be no need for competing." First, as discussed above, this debate isn't about banning net neutrality. Con's argument doesn't support adoption of a net neutrality law. Con's argument only supports the status quo -- allowing net neutrality but not requiring it. I agree with Con that banning net neutrality would be bad for the economy. What I argue for is less regulation, not more regulation. A ban on net neutrality, like a net neutrality requirement, is more regulation. Either way, that's bad for the economy. What we need is less government intrusion on the Internet, as I explained in the previous round. Second, the idea that ISPs can block competitor's websites without a net neutrality law is incorrect. As I explained in the last round, the antitrust laws prohibit anticompetitive business practices, including such discriminatory behavior that harms competition and consumers. Take a look at the Wikipedia for a brief summary of the antitrust laws: http://en.wikipedia.org.... Section 2 of the Sherman Act doesn't allow companies to harm consumers or competition by using their monopoly power to raise prices or exclude competition. Third, Con's claim that "big companies would be unable to compete with each other" is false, even if we did ban net neutrality, as there would still be many ways for companies to compete with each other. Pricing, Internet speed, Internet reliability, types of discrimination, geography -- all these would still be open to competition. To be clear, I'm not saying we should ban net neutrality. I'm just saying Con is wrong that banning net neutrality would make it impossible for companies to compete. 2. Con says "if we ban net neutrality internet providers will be able to pick which sites show up first, and ban or block websites that they don't want their customers to see." As a result, Con argues, "small businesses will not be top priority on these providers' lists and may even be banned, therefore leaving them unable to get off the ground." First, again this debate is not about banning net neutrality. Con argues against banning net neutrality, and I agree with Con that banning net neutrality is bad for small businesses. Con's arguments actually support my point, which is that more regulation harms the economy and small businesses. I argue for less regulation -- no net neutrality law, either requiring net neutrality or banning net neutrality. Second, in the absence of a net neutrality requirement, ISPs can offer customers faster or slower lanes of traffic. As I explained last round, this is good for competition, as it gives incentive to create faster lanes for which ISPs can charge higher prices. Prohibiting ISPs from discriminating in procompetitive ways (a patient's heart monitor versus a music download, for example) disincentivizes the creation of faster, more reliable Internet service. Third, Con's claim that small businesses will be "banned, therefore leaving them unable to get off the ground" is false. Again, such exclusionary practices are covered by the antitrust laws. There is no need to create rigid net neutrality laws to cover a perceived risk which is already dealt with under antitrust in a more nuanced, flexible, fact-based way. 3. Con says "if there were to be no net neutrality, high class providers such as Comcast and Verizon could sell special treatment to their favorite web companies like Google and Netflix, and charge extra fees to deliver their online videos and other content at fast speeds." Again, those "fast speeds" might not be developed in the absence of incentives to develop them. The ability to charge premium prices for faster speeds is what gives ISPs incentive to create faster, better, more reliable Internet services. The US Postal Service example is directly on point: no one has any problem with Express Mail (which costs more). Why should there by any problem with faster Internet lanes, for which companies can charge more. Always keep in mind that business practices which are legitimately anticompetitive -- practices that harm consumers or competition -- are already covered under the antitrust laws, so there's no need to create another layer of regulation, especially a rule so rigid and categorical as requiring net neutrality across-the-board, regardless of the circumstances and potential pro-competitive benefits. 4. Con says a net neutrality law is necessary to protect our privacy. But that's simply not true. What we need are stronger privacy laws, not a rigid net neutrality law. Con says that in the absence of net neutrality laws, ISPs have the "power to decode any decryptions placed by their customers." But even if net neutrality laws exist, ISPs can still decode decryptions placed by their customers. Net neutrality proponents -- not Con since he didn't argue this point specifically -- argue that without net neutrality protections, ISPs will block privacy services. But like I've argued elsewhere, that sort of misconduct is covered by the antitrust laws. We don't need net neutrality laws to protect us from exclusionary, anticompetitive business practices. The only purpose of net neutrality laws is to avoid a perceived risk -- but that perceived risk is already covered by current laws. I direct attention again to FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell's comment 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." [6] All net neutrality cases thus far have been resolved in favor of consumers under current law. We don't need more regulation to protect consumers, competition, or the Internet.

Title: Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Content: Ensuring net neutrality represents excessive government regulation and control over business.

Title: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Content: Greetings! I am quite interested in the concept of net neutrality, hence our topic: The United States Federal Government should reject Net Neutrality. I will be assuming the Pro/For side in this debate; thus, my opponent will be arguing in favor of net neutrality.The burden of proof will be net benefits.My thanks to whomever accepts this debate; you may use your first round either to accept and present your arguments, or simply to accept the debate-your choice.I hope to have a lively debate!

Title: Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem Content: Arpan Sura. "The Problem With Network Neutrality." FreedomWorks. May 2, 2006: "Solution in Search of a Problem. Currently there are no principles of network neutrality encoded into law. So ISPs are already free to block or favor content as they please. It is telling that none of them has. In fact, no proponent of network neutrality can cite an existing problem to which network neutrality is a solution."

Title: The internet should operate on the basis of net neutrality Content: Taking a neutral stance is a tacit endorsement of the validity of the message being spread as being worthy of discussion. Holocaust denial does not deserve its day in the sun, even if the outcome were a thumping victory for reason and truth. Besides, the Holocaust deniers are not convinced by reason or argument. Their beliefs are impervious to facts, which is why debate is a pointless exercise except to give them a platform by which to spread their message, organize, and legitimize themselves in the marketplace of ideas.

Title: Net neutrality Content: Ok you say ISPs wouldn't slow down websites because in a free market people wouldn't buy their service and his is only a valid argument if they have a monopoly or talk to other companies. That would be true expect for one problem in many places you only have one option. In many places you only have Comcast or you only have time Warner. Also these companies do talk to each other. In fact these to companies have talk about which territory they get plus Comcast bought out Time Warner so people often only do have one option. You say it's against the law so they won't do it. Well A. people do nothing about because they are bought off and B. there are many loopholes. Then you say another problem is if it's pro or anti competitive discrimination. Good there should be no discrimination unless the contest is illegal. Your next argument is if we put in net neutrality laws it would kill competition and investments. You're problem is net neutrality isn't knew the internet has been that way for years and the internet is great I don't want to change it you want to. Also net neutrality doesn't kill competition but ISPs blocking competitors does. I not bothering with you're last two because the first I already addressed and the other one is based on the idea net neutrality doesn't already exist which it has for years.

Title: Should The US Keep Net Neutrality Content: Here are the rules. 1. Remain professional 2. Forfeiting a round means forfeiting the debate. You have three days to make an argument, you can take out 20 minutes to type up a paragraph. 3. Please use reliable sources. 4. Don't bring further politics into this, please. This is a debate about Net Neutrality, not about whether or not we should or shouldn't impeach your weird president. 5. Just. .. don't be cancerous.

Title: Net neutrality protects consumers under near monopolies Content: "Consumers Deserve Protection". Open Internet Coalition on Opposing Views.com: "In a more perfect network, the telephone and cable companies would be investing in more capacity in order to render these issues moot. In a more perfect marketplace, there would be 4 or 5 high-speed broadband competitors offering consumers ample choice and providing a market-based check on violations of Net Neutrality – so consumers could pick a provider that respected the open Internet and didn’t interfere with open access. [...] But we all live in an imperfect world with a gross lack of capacity and competition. As a result, we need a referee to ensure networks remain open and the incentives to innovate and invest will continue to exist. Ceding this role completely to the network operators to decide will result in a different, more closed, and less useful kind of Internet."

Title: Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed Content: I believe that the con side does bring forth a plethora of convincing points, but within these points are flaws birthed by a lack of economic understanding. My opponent brought up the subject of ISPs making customers pay for anything. If an ISP, say Comcast (for example), decided to make you pay money to access certain websites, people would be ditching Comcast in droves in favor of an ISP that doesn't charge money for entry to certain websites. In my opponents third contention there are a lot of ifs, ands, buts, and whats but all of these worries are made invalidated by the free market. Basic economic theory states that consumers want the best quality product for the lowest price. Slow internet is a low quality product. If companies slow down internet, consumers leave them. If they raise prices, consumers leave them. They have these market incentives to keep good speeds and low prices so other ISPs don't beat them in the marketplace. This worry of ISPs making you pay for anything is completely unrealistic. We also must think about the point made by my opponent stating that ISPs could DDoS each other. However, there is something keeping ISPs from DDoS'ing each other, and it isn't net neutrality. It is the free market. Nobody has a reason to support an ISP that launches cyber attacks on other ISPs, so they will leave that ISP. Therefore, the ISP has an incentive to not engage in such anticompetitive behavior. These fears are ridiculous. Not only that, but repealing net neutrality won't violate freedom of speech. If ISPs prevent people from reading the news, articles, forums, etc, then people will ditch that ISP. I hate repeating myself like a broken record but it is basic economic theory. Another thing we must consider is constitutionality. In that case, why aren't phone networks, who don't have net neutrality regulations being tried in the supreme court for unconstitutionality? Because they don't engage in anti competitive behavior, and the reason they don't engage in that speech-stifling behavior even though they don't have net neutrality regulations is because of basic economics (notice a theme?). From the time the internet was created to January 2015, the U.S. did not have net neutrality regulations, and no ISP made such free-speech-violating moves without being destroyed in the court of public opinion. They will always relent, so why do we need our government watchdogs constantly trailing these ISPs? My opponent's first contention is that ISPs will gain control over the internet. This is false, and my reasoning for this is... the free market! Not surprising, eh? If anything, my opponents example of Verizon conducting "network testing" shows another flaw with net neutrality instead of helping his case. Net neutrality does permit "reasonable network management practices" and this story shows that certain ISPs could find loopholes through this flimsy law. Overall, there is no reason to keep net neutrality. By keeping it, we are hampering innovation, unfairly levying taxes against ISPs, keeping new companies from joining the market, and stripping smaller ISPs of a valuable advantage. By getting rid of it, we won't be handing control of the internet to ISPs, violating the first amendment, or giving ISPs the ability to make you pay for internet services. We have no reason to keep net neutrality and a ton of reasons to repeal it. Because of this I urge you to vote in affirmation to the resolution.

Title: Net neutrality properly separates Internet access and content. Content: Network owners or Internet Service Providers are considered the gatekeepers of the Internet. They control access. And, this access should be differentiated from the actual content on the web, so that network owners stick to providing fees for access at a flat rate, without regulating and/or pricing (differentially) content.

Title: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Content: 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...

Title: Net neutrality impairs development of broadband infrastructure: Content: Network Service Providers need money to expand the critical broadband infrastructure that enables streaming data over the Internet. Many argue that the need for this expansion will rise exponentially as the demand for multimedia and streaming video grows dramatically (such media involves more bits of data, and thus takes up more broadband space). Network Service Providers envision a tier system for charging different content-providers for varying levels of broadband use. It is claimed that the revenue from this would be used to help expand the broadband infrastructure. Without such funding, network providers argue that the infrastructure will be insufficient and that consumers will suffer from slower Internet speeds. Because Network Neutrality blocks such a tiered system from emerging, many believe it prevents network owners from raising the revenue needed to make the investments that will build the robust Internet of the future.

Title: Net neutrality Content: I believe in net neutrality but I don't when reading your response I noticed that you only thought about "providing your son that yacht he always wanted," and "WE SHOULD HAVE EVEN MORE POWER," and what I want to say is that net neutrality is NOT about providing people like you with more power and your son with a yacht it is about how the Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, etc. So again net neutrality isn't just about you and what you want it is about what is best for everyone. I believe if everyone is provided with an equal kind of Internet than the world will have less people like you.

Title: Net Neutrality Content: Why should a few big corporations get control over the Internet? I have a example of why Net Neutrality is good. Say a ISP like Comcast has a new streaming service called Watchcast, should they have the right to block Netflix? With a majority of Americans living in an area with access to only one ISP, If they can only have Comcast that means they could not watch Netflix. Is that a good thing?

Title: Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Content: A government that ensures net neutrality is one that violates principles of freedom.

Title: Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Content: Innovation would slow.

Title: Net neutrality provides for the free circulation of data and services. Content: Many net neutrality activists would have you believe the internet is a green pasture of freedom in which information disseminates freely. This is not exactly true. Like Cerf said, innovation is welcome at any and all levels of the internet, and yet, in recent years, it has become dominated by single oligarchic rulers. Google is the main search engine, YouTube is the main video hosting platform, Amazon is the main retailer, Netflix is the main film and television hosting site. The list goes on. For almost any information or service you could want from the internet, one company usually dominates the field.

Title: Net neutrality helps preserve democracy and free speech Content: Net neutrality does not technically have any impact on what you can say. It does affect who you can reach with said speech, but on the individual level, it has no bearing on the first amendment. Response: It does concern freedom of the press. In the U.S., the press—any media outlet—is also allocated freedom of speech. A controlled net would mean a controlled media. Internet service providers would even be able to block certain outlets if they found an excuse to do so, and that is certainly a violation of the first amendment.

Title: The Internet: The Last True Example of Free Speech (Net Neutrality) Content: NOTE: DO NOT TAKE THIS DEBATE IF YOU ARE GOING TO DEBATE THAT THE INTERNET IS OUR LAST VESTAGE OF FREE SPEECH. THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC OF THIS DEBATE. NET NEUTRALITY IS. I believe that Net Neutrality should be spared, and should be kept away from Virgin Media's grubby, greedy hands. For those who don't know, I'll summarize net neutrality in a simple way. Net neutrality is what lets you sit at your computer, hop on the internet, and visit every site on the internet at the same speed. Now, granted it will not always be the same each visit. There is sure to be differing ammounts of content on each site your computer has to process. What Virgin Media plans to do, is 'throttle' your internet. Which means, they can tell your computer to fo fast to one site, but slow to another. And they do this because, most people would pay to be in the fast lane. They can also block access entirely to sites you normally go to, and redirect you to sites their sponsors create. Which means, if Google doesn't pay Virgin Media, typing google.com in the address bar will take you to a site like fetchfido.com, who has paid Virgin Media. The only way to get to Google, is to pay. Now, I believe the internet is the last vessel of our free speech. TV isn't. It's controlled by a group of people who care more about displaying an interesting story than the truth they promise. Same goes for newspapers/magazines. On the internet, everybody's oppinion is virtually the same. Nobody has a higher authority than another on the internet, except in a controlled situation. If Virgin Media takes that away, they're taking away one of our most primary rights.

Title: Should The US Keep Net Neutrality Content: So you make some really interesting points. I'm just gonna refute what you said in each paragraph separately. Paragraph #1: So you used an example of, "paying more for water." But here is the thing. It really isn't that. A common misconception is that the price of basic internet will be raised. No. Everyone will have internet at the same price as it was during Net Neutrality, but you can pay for faster internet if you want it, similar to if you want to upgrade your hotel room. You can upgrade if you have the money, but if you don't have the money, it doesn't mean that you don't have a good hotel room. You still do! So it beneficial to people who have a few extra dollars. Paragraph #2: So you said that it would be hard to make businesses it completely backwards. As I said in my second point, "Net Neutrality is a Red Herring that Hurts Innovation," FCC plan (pg 249.): businesses need legal/financial freedom in order to spur innovation and creativity. By encouraging network investment, consumers benefit. According to Economic Analyst Ainsley Miller, "a world w/out NN would actually provide better service b/c companies would have more leeway to create faster content for everyone." Paragraph #3 and 4: You were talking about a violation of free speech, but according to Fox News: no internet provider wants to be known for "slow service," or being, "anti-free speech," so the consumer has nothing 2 worry about. So, here is what I just said hopefully simplified. If the Internet Service Provider slows down certain websites, the ISPs will actually lose money because they don't want to be thought of as 'anti-free speech.' And if they are, then people will move to a new ISP. So it is actually in the best interest of the ISPs to not slow down content. Instead, they can slow down bad things, like scams, hackers, and things that people don't want to see online. They won't push their personal agenda because then they will lose money, something that they don't want to do. Thank you!

Title: Net Neutrality Content: The government should not require ISPs to provide access to all websites equally, because internet access is a service provided to websites and consumers, and servicer providers have the right to decide what service they provide exactly, and to whom they provide it. The government should not dictate how we use the internet. Very fun, short, debate. Glad to make your first one a good one. P. S. R. V. V. V.

Title: Net neutrality laws. Content: The implication behind making the debate impossible to accept, asking you to comment if you're interested, was to exercise discrimination in choice of opponent. I think taking the debate without commenting is bad conduct and constitutes a forfeit (at least based on the standards on this site). That said, the debate isn't about net neutrality as principle. Net neutrality "is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication." http://en.wikipedia.org... The debate is about net neutrality laws. The question is whether we should require net neutrality, or whether we should regulate anticompetitive business practices through other means (e.g. antitrust laws). The problem with requiring net neutrality -- with a net neutrality law -- is that it doesn't distinguish between procompetitive and anticompetitive practices. Entrepreneurs often experiment with new and different business models -- e.g. prioritizing network traffic -- to lower prices and improve customer experience. Lariat Wireless, for example, a small internet service provider ("ISP") in Wyoming, forbids its customers from operating servers, to reduce network congestion and improve the overall experience for their users. Brett Glass, the CEO, explains: "most Internet users would not know what a server was if it bit them, and they have no problem uploading content to a Web site such as YouTube for distribution. This means customers that do need to operate a server could obtain that capability by paying a bit more to cover the additional cost." Under a net neutrality law, however, Lariat Wireless would be forced to shift "everyone to the more expensive plan. We will therefore be less competitive, offer less value to consumers and especially less value to economically disadvantaged ones." [1] Moreover, current antitrust laws are enough to protect consumers from anticompetitive practices. The net neutrality debate turns on the idea that there are bottlenecks on the Internet which allow network owners to exercise market power. For example, if a local telephone company has a monopoly in broadband access and it blocks broadband subscribers from using an Internet phone service offered by a rival company, that could harm both competition and consumers. But that's a classic antitrust issue. And under current antitrust laws, Section 2 of the Sherman Act, that's illegal if it harms consumers and competition. FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell notes 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." [2] There is simply no reason to prefer displacing the antitrust laws -- flexible, nuanced, fact-based enforcement -- with a rigid net neutrality regime. References: [1] http://judiciary.house.gov... [2] In re Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Indus. Practices, 25 FCC Rcd. 17,905 (2010)

Title: Net neutrality Content: == Definitions ==Net neutrality: "the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication." http://en.wikipedia.org...Antitrust laws: "a collection of federal and state government laws, which regulates the conduct and organization of business corporations, generally to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers ... restrict the formation of cartels and prohibit other collusive practices regarded as being in restraint of trade ... restrict the mergers and acquisitions of organizations which could substantially lessen competition ... [and] prohibit the creation of a monopoly and the abuse of monopoly power." http://en.wikipedia.org... == Rebuttal == Pro claims that net neutrality is necessary to stop ISPs from slowing down the Internet. But the reality is much different. ISPs could only do that if there were no competition. That means they'd have to collude with each other, or have a monopoly (and abuse that monopoly power). Both of those are illegal under current antitrust laws (Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act). So net neutrality isn't necessary to stop ISPs from slowing down the Internet. If an ISP did slow down the Internet while charging monopoly prices, another company would provide faster service at a competitive price, and consumers would buy their Internet from the company providing faster service at a competitive price. That's how a free market works. We don't neet net neutrality laws to regulate an area that's already regulated by antitrust laws.== Argument ==The net neutrality debate turns on the idea that there are bottlenecks on the Internet which allow network owners to exercise market power. For example, if a local company has a monopoly in Internet access and blocks subscribers from using an Internet phone service offered by a rival company, that could harm both competition and consumers. The question is whether we should require net neutrality, or whether we should regulate that sort of anticompetitive practice through other means (i.e. antitrust laws).The problem with requiring net neutrality is that net neutrality doesn't distinguish between procompetitive discrimination and anticompetitive discrimination. Under a net neutrality regime, networks can't favor traffic from a patient's heart monitor over traffic delivering a music download. Or worse, networks can't restrict downright harmful traffic, such as viruses, worms, and spam. Instead, all Internet traffic must be treated equally. Antitrust laws, on the other hand, allow procompetitive discrimination while also prohibiting anticompetitive discrimination.(1) An unregulated Internet is better than a regulated Internet.The Internet has always been shaped by intense competition and rampant growth. Entrepreneurs have had the latitude to experiment with new and different business models. And as a result, in the absence of heavy government regulation, and "due in large part to private investment and market-driven innovation, broadband in America has improved considerably in the last decade. More Americans are online at faster speeds than ever before." [1]Rigid net neutrality laws would change that. Instead of allowing the free market to guide investment dollars where needed, and allowing businesses to act based on the best use of scarce resources like bandwidth, the government would dictate many of these decisions, chilling competition, growth, and innovation.(2) Net neutrality doesn't distinguish between procompetitive and anticompetitive practices.Entrepreneurs often experiment with new and different business models -- e.g. prioritizing network traffic -- to lower prices and improve customer experience. Lariat Wireless, for example, a small internet service provider ("ISP") in Wyoming, forbids its customers from operating servers, to reduce network congestion and improve the overall experience for their users. Brett Glass, the CEO, explains: "most Internet users would not know what a server was if it bit them, and they have no problem uploading content to a Web site such as YouTube for distribution. This means customers that do need to operate a server could obtain that capability by paying a bit more to cover the additional cost." Under a net neutrality law, however, Lariat Wireless would be forced to shift "everyone to the more expensive plan. We will therefore be less competitive, offer less value to consumers and especially less value to economically disadvantaged ones." [2]Unregulated markets give entrepreneurs the latitude to experiment as such, producing procompetitive outcomes: more options, lower prices, and better quality services. But a net neutrality requirement would categorically condemn all discriminatory practices, without distinguishing the good, procompetitive ones from the bad, anticompetitive ones.(3) Current antitrust laws are enough to protect consumers and competition.Antitrust laws protect consumers from anticompetitive business practices -- monopolization, collusion, price-fixing, etc. Under these laws, courts ask whether there's been actual harm to consumers or competition before condemning a business practice. If there's been a showing of harm to consumers or competition, then the company harming the consumer or competition faces heavy fines and even prison. This approach is more nuanced, fact-based, and flexible, and it's better for the economy because it gives entrepreneurs latitude to experiment.Pro says that ISPs could slow down the Internet and force content providers to pay for so-called "fast lanes." But if that actually harms competition or consumers, it's already illegal under current antitrust laws. An FCC Commissioner, Robert McDowell, even notes 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] There is simply no reason to prefer displacing the antitrust laws -- flexible, nuanced, fact-based enforcement -- with a rigid net neutrality regime.Sources:[1] http://transition.fcc.gov...[2] http://judiciary.house.gov...[3] In re Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Indus. Practices, 25 FCC Rcd. 17,905 (2010)

Title: net neutrality Content: I accept.I will provide one clarification and then post my first arguments and rebuttals in round 2.Net neutrality: this is the idea that ISP's (internet service providers) like Comcast should not give preferential treatment to any specific traffic on their network.

Title: A government that ensures net neutrality is one that violates principles of freedom. Content: The Internet is founded upon principles of the free market - people are allowed to publish content and the content's success is based upon whether or not people like it. Instead of interfering with the free market, the government should allow businesses to direct themselves. Otherwise, the system veers dangerously towards socialism. [[http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/_Net-Neutrality_-Is-Socialism_-Not-Freedom-8410175.html]]

Title: Net neutrality allows some sites to hog bandwidth Content: "Editorial: Net neutrality not so neutral." OC Register. September 25th, 2009: "One difficulty with government guaranteeing entitlements at the expense of others is the problem of those who abuse the free ride. Bandwidth-hogging services such as person-to-person file sharing and downloadable video from sites like YouTube and Google strain network capacities. Broadband providers legitimately claim they have a right to regulate such traffic over their networks, which may mean giving priority to their own services or charging varying rates. [...] That's why large bandwidth providers such as Verizon and AT&T have opposed previous 'net neutrality' proposals. Their networks would be abused. And that's why operations like Google want net neutrality mandated by federal regulations. They could offer services without sharing the whole cost to provide them over broadband networks."

Title: Net neutrality protects freedoms and openness of the Internet: Content: As co-inventor of the Internet Protocol Vint Cerf has stated, "The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services. A lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive."[2]

Title: Net Neutrality Content: Whoever joins this debate, lets make this a civilized debate. My first argument is simple, the definition of net neutrality Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application

Title: Net Neutrality Content: Well let's go ahead and get this going... First: The loss of net neutrality is not something that the government or big business can do anything about. The internet is far too vast to be properly regulated. The money required to promote neutrality is far too large amount to be feasible. Second: My opponent states that the internet is a level playing field, and that is so true. Much like our society, success gains you a higher place in society so why not extend that to the internet. The web is nothing but a reflection of the real world so a successful business in the real world should also reap the benefits of advertisement on the web. This is how America works. You succeed, you gain the benefits.

Title: Net Neutrality Content: How would we be better off without the internet. The internet is a great way for small or big businesses to gain publicity without any hard work. Without Net neutrality bigger businesses can just pay the ISPs to block the smaller businesses. So Net neutrality is just gonna slow down innovation.

Title: Net neutrality maintains a free market and even playing field Content: Conservative lobbyists who would abolish net neutrality are quick to brand the Open Internet Order as a regulative measure. Regulation to conservatives is like sunlight to a vampire. Somehow, allowing huge internet service-providing corporations to exercise any kind of profit-seeking behavior they can come up with is better for business than giving new sites a chance to grow. In a Forbes article titled "Net Neutrality Is a Bad Idea Supported by Poor Analogies," Jeffrey Dorfman writes "[Net neutrality] is a bad idea for the same reason that only having vanilla ice cream for sale is a bad idea: some people want, and are willing to pay for, something different." That would be a rich analogy, right? Response: Broadband service is not ice cream and, categorically, it comes in one flavor anyway. What varies is its quantity. Conservatives who trumpet the anti-regulation cause have no ground to stand on. They do not argue for anti-regulation, they hope to take the power of regulation from the government and give it to the private corporations.

Title: The internet should operate on the basis of net neutrality Content: The internet is a free market of ideas in which all beliefs can be submitted to the whole of the online community and then put to criticism and judgment. In the same way irrational beliefs like Creationism first found purchase on the internet only to be undermined and discredited by the efforts of online activists, so too have Holocaust deniers been forced by their presence on the web to justify their beliefs and submit evidence for scrutiny. In so doing the online community has systematically discredited the deniers and undermined their efforts at recruitment. By taking on a stance of net neutrality in the provision of internet and the blocking of sites, governments allow this process to play out and for the free exchange of ideas on which liberal democratic society is built upon to show its strength.[1] A neutral stance upholds the highest principles of the state, and allows people to feel safe in the veracity and representativeness of the internet content they are provided. [1] Seythal, T. “Holocaust Denier Sentenced to Five Years”. The Washington Post. 15 February 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501283.html

Title: Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Content: Net neutrality maintains a free market and even playing field

Title: Net Neutrality Content: This debate is about Net Neutrality. RULES: No Profanity Sources are not required but are recommended. 1st round is for acceptance ONLY 2nd and 3rd rounds are for arguments ONLY Last round is for thanking eachother for the debate ONLY To those who have no idea what Net Neutrality is; Net Neutrality is this, "the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites." Source for the definition. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Title: Net neutrality. Content: One thing I have noticed since net neutrality began in 2015 was that conservatives were ostracized in a lot of social media platforms, which is why they have turned to sights that they pay for where they are not interfered with at all. In a way net neutrality has opened it up for large social media sites were able to almost block conservative content without anyone having a say in it. Which is why they support it so much as well as why they show the negative to net neutrality so often. Finally, net neutrality just prevents companies from charging you for certain items like giving YouTube unlimited power to ISPs without having to pay.

Title: Net Neutrality Is a Horrible Idea Content: Sorry for bad english in advance.

Title: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Content: -My great thanks to an excellent opponent for providing excellent opposition in this debate; I legitimately enjoyed it! -In this final round, I will seek to address all of the main points and summarize arguments to as to be as clear as possible on the rational for why I have succeeded in fulfilling the resolution that the USFG should reject Network Neutrality. Freedom of Speech -I agreed that we are considering the concept of net neutrality as “a general principle/concept; we are considering all forms of network neutrality legislation.” Inherent to this, while certainly debating the merits of the possible, we are focusing on the current net neutrality legislation as proposed by the USFG; debating any other form of legislation is not of immediate relevance, as it is not being considered for institution. Thus, my previous arguments against net neutrality via the FCC stand, as ALL current forms of proposed net neutrality legislation specifically utilize the FCC as the primary actor, an argument which Opposition ceded and attempts to circumvent by arguing that we are only addressing net neutrality as a concept in an effort to eliminate all historical applications of net neutrality legislation, including through the FCC, thus hoping to eliminate all arguments against freedom of speech; this clearly fails. -Opposition protests that my arguments are very narrow in that “it only deals with the FCC as the enforcer,” an argument addressed above; however, note that Opposition’s only suggested alternative to current net neutrality legislation is one which “requires the FCC to regulate ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner,” with the suggestion that this would prevent such control of the internet by the FCC suggested previously. The first problem is that this still involves the FCC as the enforcer, negating Oppositions solution. -Opposition further misunderstands my arguments regarding the “highly transparent and democratic manner” bit. I never argue that the FCC is highly transparent and democratic, but rather that they are tasked with being highly transparent and democratic. Opposition’s solution for corruption and the FCC’s blatant censorship is to make them “highly transparent and democratic,” yet doesn’t have any suggestions on how. The problem with this approach is that they are already thus tasked; in fact, our entire form of government is built around the concept of being transparent and democratic, yet clearly there have been failings therein. Tacking a “highly democratic” onto a ‘highly transparent’ does not change the course of the government. The reason that I reject such a hypothetical as Opposition’s arguments have become invested in is because it has been an unachieved goal for decades. It is one thing to suggest a hypothetical on merit of its benefits; it is another entirely to argue solvency from a hypothetical without solvency for the hypothetical, the difference being: Opposition has suggested how we would benefit from a highly transparent and democratic FCC/government, yet fails to suggest the method of obtaining said transparency. Further, Opposition’s solvency is entirely speculation; Opposition has presented absolutely no proof that this theoretical transparency could result in the circumvention of the threats of concentrating power over ISPs into government hands, and therefore this argument is non-topical. China -It is neither inappropriate nor fallacial to note similarities between proposed US legislation and acts of censorship in foreign nations, nor is it fallacial to note the outcomes of such in foreign nations. I never argued that the outcome of net neutrality legislation will be China; I simply note the similarities and suggest that comparatively speaking, such actions of giving government control over the internet has led to government abusing this power-I am arguing for the similarity between the two. If such a comparison is fallacial, then every time we look to another nation, corporation, form of legislation, etc. to try and gauge the reaction/outcome of our pending actions based off of the outcome of theirs so as to improve upon it, we commit a fallacy, meaning one of two things: either our everyday actions are fallacial, yet work and have proven beneficial in reforming the path of our nation to avoid the mistakes of others; or Opposition’s interpretation here is mistaken. Either way this is a legitimate comparison that is used every day in our government to improve our policies and avoid the mistakes of others. For this reason the argument stands. c) Opposition notes that “Pro has not responded to my argument in the previous round that FCC actions regarding televisions and radios should not be compared with the Internet, because of the different ways information is transmitted between those.” Opposition appears to be forgetting that under current legislation via Section 706 and Title II, internet services would be regrouped from information services to the same regulations governing common carriers (radio, TV). Thus, as the FCC will have the exact same level of control and oversight of the internet as it did over radio and TV, these two are absolutely comparable despite all informational transmission differences because the law would treat them absolutely the same. I am not ignoring the structural differences between TV/radio and the internet; rather, net neutrality legislation is. Your argument serves to undermine your own case. ISPs 1. Blocking Content a + b) On the contrary; I recognize the perspective you are coming from. I simply argue that on balance, the allowance of the market to introduce new ISPs without the restrictions of ones such as Comcast (the sole example of content exclusions cited in this debate) will allow for a net benefit. The FCC (or any other governmental entity) would impose strict regulations of what is/is not acceptable on the internet, and this content would simply be gone; nobody has access. Under ISPs, there could be limited content disallowed, but on the whole no content is strictly forbidden, and the market allows for the emergence of new ISPs supplying the content blocked by others; it is in their best interest economically in such a market (without net neutrality regulations) to supply as much content as possible. d) I disagree; I feel compelling responses have been given as to why we should consider solely the FCC as actor under net neutrality legislation. e) My argument here succeeds for the same reason cited above. Further, my arguments move past the specific legislation being considered in the US to other forms of net neutrality; I have asserted on several occasions that the fact that one commission (the FCC) has existed and been able to garner so much control over methods of communication shows the capacity for such organizations to exist. The mere fact that net neutrality legislation would entail giving a governmental body authority over the internet is sufficient argument against the institution of net neutrality legislation. 2. Innovation a + b) Opposition appears to be looking for a debate on economics; the recognition that “there are differences between the bandwidth needs of various content” directly leads to the conclusion, by businesses in general, that the pricing should vary accordingly to make a profit. This is common business practice, and Opposition’s attempt to philosophically analyze this practice is simply an attempt to distract from the real issue, which is that content is priced differently as a result of the production cost differential (which Opposition concedes to be true). c) This doesn’t change the fact that it can cost more to transmit certain types of data, thus costing more, regardless of where precisely the cost originates. Household b) The probability of network congestion being resolved is stronger without net neutrality. With net neutrality, ISPs are not required to upgrade their systems, resulting in no solution from net neutrality legislation. With ISPs being able to price their own internet packages, congestion is reduced due to users paying for their usage, but there is also a greater level of income with which to reform the system. The odds of network congestion solvency due to incentive by ISPs is much greater without net neutrality, granting Government net benefits in this instance. Conclusion -Opposition’s case relies heavily on very technical arguments, the foremost being that we should only analyze net neutrality as a concept, excluding the aspect of existing legislature. However, it is crucial for this debate to analyze not only net neutrality as a concept, but to also include the existing set of reforms which would enact net neutrality in the US. Hypothetical forms of legislation only become relevant once proposed, because here were are trying to argue the merits of that net neutrality legislation with which we have the potential to be governed by in the future. The only reason for Opposition’s exclusion of current legislation is the FCC’s history and the weight this lends to the Government in this debate. -Further, Opposition’s only proposed argument against the right of ISP’s to price their services freely is that “they can’t be trusted to govern the internet” and “it would hurt the consumer.” As I have argued, an increased cost to the consumer has no bearing on the right of ISPs to self-determine pricing. Additionally, in arguing that ISPs cannot be trusted with the internet, Opposition is essentially arguing that the government (via the FCC) can. I have continually shown this assertion to be false throughout this debate; Opposition’s attempts to exclude the FCC from this debate following Round 2 only serves to support this point. I feel I have very thoroughly shown that the Government has earned net benefits in support of the resolution, The USFG Should Reject Network Neutrality, and that the Opposition has not upheld its burden of proof in this resolution. -The Resolution is Upheld.

Title: Net neutrality. Content: I'm not asking for a government takeover, but there should be some reugulation to ensure equality for all parties, including conservatives. Everyone benefits from an open internet. What do you think net neutrality is?

Title: Net Neutrality Content: Bro. Net neutrality is not needed. I'm telling you guys. Just because you have to spend like a billion dollars just for one Google search doesn't mean the end of the world. Seriously, we are probably better off without the internet, anyway. This is the start of something---I can feel it. Having net neutrality can damage the world economy in terrible ways. When the world realizes that they actually don't need the internet we will all be happy. I hope you know that.

Title: Net neutrality was effectively the law until 2005 Content: "Openness is a Fundamental Principle of the Internet." Open Internet Coalition: "Legal safeguards protected network neutrality during the Internet's first three decades, promoting the dramatic expansion of Internet services, apps, and websites which generated billions in investment and many thousands of new jobs. In 2005, these protections were stripped away, and some Internet access providers have already started discriminating against certain applications. For example, in 2007 Comcast was caught blocking Bittorrent, which is used by competing video providers, and AT&T has restricted Internet telephony and video services on its wireless network."

Title: Net neutrality provides legal consistency that is good for ISPs. Content: By setting out clear rules about what is acceptable and what is unacceptable behavior, ISPs will avoid getting into trouble like Comcast did when it blocked BitTorrent users in early 2010. This would help network owners avoid getting into trouble both with anti-competitive laws as well as their customers who get angry when they discover that the company crossed the line in blocking content, discriminating between content, or charged extra for data from one site versus another.

Title: Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Content: Net neutrality helps preserve democracy and free speech

Title: Net neutrality saves Internet as ideal marketplace Content: Doc Searls. "Net Neutrality vs. Net Neutrering." Linux Journal. March 3, 2006: "By framing the Net as a neutral place, we assure that it will continue to serve as what it has already been for more than ten years: a public marketplace where private enterprise of all forms can not only grow and thrive, but can do both better than it ever has anywhere, ever, before."

Title: WODC: This House Believes That Provisions of Internet Services Should be a Public Utility Content: Okay, none of my opponent's arguments against net neutrality work. This debate is not about net neutrality and whether it should be tossed aside or used is beside the point. Somebody could be pro net neutrality and against considering the Internet a utility or somebody can be for considering the Internet a utility and against net neutrality. My opponent has dropped several of my arguments. My opponent has dropped the argument that the cost of infrastructure and entry is so much that it takes a significant amount of control over local markets for a start up to succeed, and since they're the new guy in town it's extremely hard to gain the 30% of the market they need. Broadband companies such as Comcast, have huge natural monopolies, and in a world that requires such a big infrastructure and market penetration to succeed, it's virtually impossible to have a competitive industry. He has dropped my arguments showing that currently the Internet companies have virtual monopolies over local markets. These facts automatically get accepted into any judges calculations as it's too late to bring up new arguments against them as per WODC rules, as well as just a general principle of fairness. LANNAN IS CONFUSED AGAIN My opponent's rebuttal round is spent using arguments against the nationalization of the Internet industry. Let me define nationalization for those who may not be aware of what that is; "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. " . http://en.m.wikipedia.org... This debate is not about taking private assets and turning them into government property. The debate is merely about recognizing that the companies who provide Internet services have too much control over the industry. When a company has too much control over an industry, it's competition is no longer able to act as a check against the company acting against the best interest of the consumer. The regulation that comes with recognizing that Internet services are a public utility, are there to insure a balance between making a profit and treating customers fairly. This type of regulation actually allows a company to keep their monopolies because it understands that these types of services require massive infrastructure. Just like electric companies and consumers would be worse off with more competition in broadband, because it would create an alarming amount of overlapping infrastructures, however that is kinda beside the point. The massive infrastructure actually helps create a natural monopoly as I have argued and my opponent has not contested the natural monopoly exists. Con mentions how theoretically price controls can be too high or too low and harm industry. While I concede that it is possible for the government to charge outrages prices for goods and drive consumers away or charge too little and destroy a company, it is unlikely. Phone service, electricity, and water services have been regulated as utilities for as long as me and my opponent have been alive and my guess is we both have electricity and running water, which is believe it or not, quite affordable. While the landline telephone industry going the way of the dinosaur, when it was a necessity, government regulating it as a utility kept the prices low enough for one to be in virtually every home while the companies providing the services actually made plenty of profits the entire time they were regulated. The regulations, neither harmed consumers or the companies, it merely balanced out the disadvantages of having a monopolized industry, and it should be noted that competition in these specific industries isn't necessarily a good thing either as the massive infrastructures are overlapping and waste a lot of resources. It's one of those situations where people are better off with a regulated monopoly than many competing companies. My opponent moves Onto discussing Kant and what's known as the categorical imperative, but greatly misunderstands the categorical imperative, as well as gives us no reason to favor that moral system, over the normative system we already use. Seeing as how the normative system is the one we already use and We were given no reason to assume Kantian ethics, I say we use normative ethics. The first problem with applying Kantian ethics in this situation is that Kant was describing a system of personal ethics for people to apply, and my opponent is trying to imply personal ethics to the state without explaining why personal ethics are even applicable to a non living entity. According to Kant perfect duties are to be performed all the time, where as imperfect duties were to be performed in some circumstances. Things that are imperfect duties aren't things the state should refrain from as my opponent assumes. If we're applying the categorical imperative to the state, imperfect duties should be done sometimes, meaning that sometimes it is correct to treat a utility as a utility. I've explained why we should do so in this debate. If it is an imperfect duty, it is still one that should be performed based on the reasoning I gave. . http://plato.stanford.edu... Regulated vs Unregulated "My opponent harps on the US having such a terrible internet speed and quality, but they are sadly mistaken. We can see that we are actually 10th in the World for the fastest speed and best internet quality. We are definately not the 40th slot that my opponent mistakably claims. " Um I linked to a study showing that America is 40th among countries and territories looked at. I actually went through the trouble of quoting stats and quotes from an article on the study, where as my opponent merely says I'm mistaken without pointing out which of the statistics I quoted is wrong or why. I read the article my opponent links to in the comment section. Out of a list of 10 countries we see that the United States is 10th. We have no many ideals how many countries that study looked at or it's method collections. So one list shows the United States in last place of 10 areas and the other shows it as last place of 40 countries. Come on Lannan, last place is last place. Clearly not all countries and areas are included in my list of 40. My list obviously excluded third world nations and the Gal"pagos Islands. There is no need to split hairs here. The point is that the United States could and should do better. A point which my opponent doesn't counter at all. "We can see that this is a HUGE concession as my opponent here concedes that under the status quo that the free market is better as "They make out better when they're unregulated"" My statement was that the monopolies do better when they are left unregulated, not that the economy or customers do better. Clearly, my argument is that these companies have too much leverage over consumers and despite the fact that Comcast does better when they don't have as many rules to follow, the average American does worse. My opponent ends that round with a baffling remark about nationalization, which isn't even something we're debating. Status quo and Anti Trust "We can see here by what my opponent decided to point out is that once again we need free market competition over that of the Public Nationalization of this industry as it helps the industry. " The quote by the FCC chairman is meant to point out the lack of competition in the Internet industry. The quote is by another person. The chairman may be knowledgable about the problems facing the industry, but I disagree with his conclusions on the solution. He sees the problem is not enough competition and jumps to the most obvious conclusion, however the most obvious solution isn't feasible in this situation as I've shown the industry to be too hard to break into. "My opponent has dropped the entire argument that I've made here and we can see that the current Sharman Bill has done it's job. " I haven't dropped any arguments. The current bill you bring up has done absolutely nothing to prevent these industries from monopolizing (and we haven't even concluded that monopolizing a utility is bad, only that a monopolized utility should be regulated as one. ). I've shown that the current attempts at preventing monopolies has failed in this circumstance, that the industry naturally monopolizes as it needs deep market penetration to be profitable and that the status quo isn't working and we need provisions of Internet services to be recognized as a utility. Conclusion My opponent hasn't even argued against the resolution and instead has argued against nationalization and argued against net neutrality. He has dropped most of my arguments and has baffled me with his interpretations of my arguments. I urge my opponent to read over my arguments several times to comprehend them properly. I also urge him to just forfeit the debate and save the judges the trouble of having to read through all this and analyze it as a formality.