Question: Should net neutrality be restored?

Title: Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed Content: Round 3: 1st rebuttal Round 4: 2nd rebuttal Round 5: Closing statements I believe net neutrality should be repealed.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 – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Content: Net neutrality is required to preserve the existing structure of the internet.

Title: allow internet service providers to block access to extremist websites Content: ISPs should be required to maintain Net Neutrality

Title: block access to websites that deny the Holocaust Content: The internet should operate on the basis of net neutrality

Title: Insert topic here. Content: I pick resolution 2, "Net Neutrality should be made into law and enforced". You are PRO, I am CON. If you would like to go first, go ahead; if not, I will next round.

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: Network neutrality Content: Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem

Title: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Content: (Note that I have neglected to mention a variety of arguments that have little or no bearing on the debate, 10000 characters are often not enough when debating a topic like this) IntroductionPro claims that he should be the winner of this debate because “the Opposition has not presented a case worthy of a win.” But it was stated very explicitly in my 2nd Round that my strategy in this debate is not to provide positive arguments for net neutrality; instead I was to undermine Pro’s arguments, by refuting all of his contentions, and thus show that there are exclusive benefits in rejecting net neutrality. If I do this successfully, then Pro has not met his BOP. But in doing so, I inadvertently affirm a case for net neutrality because in his 1st round, Pro has essentially set out the case for net neutrality, as he has already specified arguments in favour of net neutrality, such as:• A rejection of net neutrality enables “broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content.”• Net neutrality enables “equal treatment” and “ends [ending] discrimination in transmitting content”, which is desirable. Pro then seeks out to refute them. But, if I successfully refute his criticisms, then these arguments for net neutrality are affirmed by default. So I personally do not have to provide positive arguments of my own, because Pro already has done so for me.In addition, in other areas of the debate, I have also implicitly made arguments for net neutrality such as:• “ISPs are not to be trusted with regulating and controlling the Internet.”Freedom of Speech1. FCCa) Pro accepts that net neutrality as considered in this debate will be focussing on the principle or concept of net neutrality – in effect, all forms of net neutrality legislation. Pro takes issue with the “highly transparent and democratic manner” bit. He claims that the FCC already is highly transparent and democratic. This contradicts his later statement; that “net neutrality concentrates the decision of what is available into the hands of five commission members.” [the FCC] I don’t see how that is transparent and democratic (especially) at all. b) Pro also argues that my solution is “hypothetic” and that I would need to present “examples of specific legislation spelling out how exactly transparency is achieved and grants solvency.” I don’t. No matter how hypothetical the scenario presented is, it still should be treated because we are dealing with net neutrality as a principle. c) Pro also argues that “regardless of how transparent they are, their idea of ‘fair’ still does not line up with ours.” But I am not advocating for the FCC to merely act “transparently”, but also “highly democratically”. 2. Chinaa) Pro’s argument is irrelevant. Even if we adopt the view that net neutrality would lead to infringements of freedom of speech with parallels to censorship in China, it still is a slippery slope.Consider the format of a slippery slope fallacy: “If we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually too, therefore A should not happen.”We can see that Pro’s argument doesn’t overcome the problem of a slippery slope, because Z is simply changed from “censorship that mirrors China” to “censorship that has many parallels to censorship as seen in China.” b) Pro misuses MacKinnon’s article. Never in the article did MacKinnon talk about net neutrality, as a Control+F search of “neutrality.” would reveal. Instead, MacKinnon was talking about the Stop Online Piracy Act, a separate issue. Pro attempts to treat the issue lightly, making an argument based on history to suggest that “it is not unreasonable to suggest that this is a possibility we should at the very least be wary of.”c) 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. d) It is merely established that FCC’s supposed infringement upon freedom of speech is a “possibility”. But that alone is not enough to provide a reason why we should reject net neutrality. We could still have a rationale for implementing net neutrality, but merely be wary over the FCC ie. make their actions “highly transparent and democratic”. ISPs1. Blocking ContentPro claims that it is entirely reasonable that ISPs are able to block out legitimate content because they are the providers of a service, and thus it is entirely reasonable that they should be able to do what they want with such a service. Note that Pro has conceded the BitTorrent point, and shifts his attention to the rights of ISPs as a whole. a) This argument is that it entails a closed Internet, because ISPs “favour certain uses” and “explicitly filter out content”, even though it is presumed within the framework of this debate that a closed internet is not desirable. Thus, we should not grant them this right. b) Pro does attempt to address this argument, though. He argues that “with numerous ISPs and the free market allowing for other options for consumers, the internet remains open.” This is true, when considering the internet from a wide scope. It should be noted that my argument looks at the openness of the Internet from the perspective of a subscriber of an ISP company choosing to filter out content. Thus, it is claimed that on balance, the Internet still remains more open if net neutrality were rejected, than if it were not, because the introduction of “the FCC as a presider over the internet” is “a clear introduction to a closed internet”. d) Pro assumes that the FCC will abuse their power and promote actions that lead to a closed Internet. This is essentially his “freedom of speech” argument repackaged. It should be discounted due to the fact that compelling replies have already been given to such an argument, as seen above. e) His argument – that net neutrality places the decision of what is available on the Internet into the hands of five commission members – fails due to the same issue. We are dealing with net neutrality as a principle rather than specific forms of its legislation. Pro’s argument does not address net neutrality as a principle – net neutrality does not require 5 commission members to be in control – rather, it addresses specific forms of net neutrality.2. Innovationa) Pro has not addressed the descriptive-normative gap argument satisfactorily. Critics of his position do not deny that there are differences between the bandwidth needs of various content. The problem is how to link the descriptive statement (what is) to a normative statement (what ought). b) Merely restating the descriptive statement does not get anyone anywhere in bridging this gap. In order to get from an is to an ought, Pro must “combine the [is] with an ethical principle or assumption.” (1) c) Pro’s analogy of a store fails. Pro notes that different types of date have a different cost to be supplied. But this doesn’t mean that different pricing schemes for different types of data should be adopted, because this is not necessarily in virtue of the type of data transmitted, but rather the ISPs’ method of data transmission. Tom MacKay explains:“ISPs…need to deal with connections between content providers and their own networks. When Game of Thrones freezes up, the problem could be saturation at the select locations where data leaves HBO and intersects with an ISP…the ISP must upgrade their network to accommodate traffic that might be generated by a few high-data companies.” (2)3. Europe a) The net neutrality regulations in Europe are recent – only established this year - so we can’t make any judgements empirically.b) Pro needs to show that the reason that because Internet is lacking in Europe is a consequence of the establishment of broadband as a public utility. He, and the article he refers to, only cites a correlation between the two, not a causal relationship. There are other factors that should be taken into account eg. regarding broadband coverage, the discrepancy could be explained by the fact that the U.S is much richer than many European countries such as Moldova, Romania, and Bulgaria.c) Cheng et.al in their paper The Debate on Net Neutrality: A Policy Perspective show that the opposite is the case. They use a “game theoretic model” to evaluate the impact of net neutrality, and conclude that “the incentive to expand infrastructure capacity for the broadband service provider and its optimal capacity choice under net neutrality are higher than those under the no net neutrality regime except in some specific cases. Under net neutrality, the broadband service provider always invests in broadband infrastructure at the socially optimal level, but either under- or over-invests in infrastructure capacity in the absence of net neutrality.” (3) Householda) I don’t see how I have been selective with Pro’s arguments, and Pro doesn’t specify how so. Pro doesn’t specify which source provides justifications for his claims, so I can’t possibly evaluate his argument, considering that several of the sources are extremely long and for the most part, seemingly irrelevant. His quotation from “the Comcast article” fails to justify both claims that I called out upon. b) I have addressed Pro’s argument. I argued that rejection of net neutrality doesn’t result in an immediate solution of network congestion, as with the case with an affirmation of net neutrality, so neither offers an advantage. ConclusionBy refuting Pro’s arguments, I am in effect, making a case for net neutrality. Pro’s major arguments have been refuted. Thus, I have implicitly made a case for net neutrality, as well as refuted Pro’s arguments against it. The resolution is negated. (1) http://v.gd...(2) http://mic.com...(3) http://papers.ssrn.com...

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

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: Network neutrality Content: Net Neutrality means greater regulation of the Internet

Title: The US shouldn't require net neutrality. Content: I accept the Con side of the debate that the U.S. shouldn't require net neutrality. I am looking forward to Pro posting their first arguments.

Title: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality may not be good for ISPs, but good overall.

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 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: Net neutrality. Content: Nope. You don't get to play the victim. I'm a moderate, so I think both sides are crazy and ostracize each other. Everyone benefits from net neutrality.

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

Title: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Content: But with that said, let’s get down to business. In this Final Round, I will provide a final criticism of Pro’s arguments, helping to tie up some loose ends along the way, and also clarify a variety of points that I have made. In addition, I will also use this round to attempt to convince readers that they should vote for Con, rather than Pro. The FCCPro focusses a significant amount of his final round to focus on the FCC, and makes a variety of criticisms, many surrounding on the on the concepts of “principle” and “concept. ” Thus, it is important to clarify what exactly is a principle, or a concept. The Oxford English Dictionary (Kindle Edition) defines principle as:“A general idea of plan, although the details are not yet established. ”Also by the OED, concept is defined as: “An abstract idea”However, Pro argues that we should focus on current net neutrality proposals because “debating any other form of legislation is not of immediate relevance, as it is not being considered for institution. ” But, given the definitions of “principle” and “concept” this is clearly absurd. As per the definition of principle, we are considering net neutrality in general, and considering it as if “the details are not established. ” As per the definition of concept, we are to focus on net neutrality as “an abstract idea”. Therefore, Pro’s rebuttal bears little relevance; by attempting to focus this debate on current net neutrality legislation, regardless of its immediate relevance, he is destroying the whole purpose of debating a principle, or concept. Previously, I gave an example of a scenario where Pro’s arguments that the FCC has no interest in representing freedom of speech are nullified – where the FCC regulates ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner. Pro critiques this by questioning the possibility of the FCC acting in a “highly transparent and democratic manner” and argues that this is an “unachieved goal for decades” and that the whole point of government is “built around the concept of being transparent and democratic. ” This rebuttal misses the point of my hypothetical scenario. The feasibility of this scenario bears little relevance because the whole point of this hypothetical scenario is to be far-fetched, because in doing so, it shows that Pro’s freedom of speech argument does not apply in all scenarios, and thus, we can’t reject net neutrality as a principle, or concept – merely recent forms of its legislation. One final argument relevant to the FCC that Pro makes against my argument that TVs and radios can’t be compared with the Internet, because of the way information is transferred in each medium. Pro responds by citing Section 706 and Title II. But this completely misses the point of my argument. My argument was not to do with how the FCC oversees the various mediums, but how they act in regulating information. In addition, Pro has not elaborated at all on how net neutrality fails to take into consideration differences between such mediums, and how I have undermined my own case. ChinaBy the end of the debate, Pro concedes that he was only making a comparison. In contrast, at the beginning of the debate, he was adamant about the possibility of the US’s internet being similar to China’s, even invoking Negri’s statement that “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. ” Pro is correct in saying that we should note similarities between the two, and the outcomes of various policies in other countries. But it we only do this, then that leaves Pro with no real argument to enforce, and he does not sufficiently clarify his position on this issue, especially considering his change of view since Round 2. If he is still arguing that net neutrality would lead to Internet with similarities to that seen in China, then it still is a slippery slope. If he is arguing that we merely should be cautious, and take this into consideration, then there is no rationale for rejecting net neutrality; we could still accept it, but just be cautious. ISPsIt is important to note that a essentially of this section (as left by Pro in his final round) is based on the assumption that the FCC is against freedom of speech, and would set limits on what one would do on the Internet. This is an assumption that has been debated throughout this debate, but falls short of establishing that a net benefit would be reached without net neutrality. This is because – as I have argued for many times in this debate - it takes a narrow scope, rather than a broad scope regarding net neutrality – it is focussing on specific forms of net neutrality legislation, rather than net neutrality as a principle, or a concept. Once again, Pro has failed to show how the descriptive statement to the normative statement. He merely complains that my attempts to “philosophically analyse this practice is simply an attempt to distract from the real issue. ” However, firstly, as Pro himself notes, I have conceded that there are differences between the bandwidth needs of various content. However, it is completely false to say that I am “looking for a debate on economics” as Pro claims. It is also untrue that the real issue is “that content is priced differently as a result of product cost differential”. As a matter of fact, I argue that the real issue is to do with moral philosophy. This is because Pro is arguing that ISPs ought to be charging differently based on the type of content. Naturally, this leads into the realm of moral philosophy, because such a realm deals with what is right and what is wrong, what ought to be done, what ought not to be done; the normative aspects. Of course, positive economics is relevant to some extent. However, in this case, it is concerning the descriptive aspect of content, but not what ought to happen; the normative aspect. Pro hasn’t really addressed this problem; instead, he keeps trying to push us back to a debate on the descriptive statement. Pro appeals to the fact that prices should be varying because to make a profit because “it is common business practice”. However, this doesn’t lead logically to the conclusion that the prices should be varying. Simply because something is common business practice does not mean that this is right, or should be allowed in policy. Consequently, we have seen no compelling reason that ISPs should be pricing content differently, as per their bandwidth needs. We have merely seen that different content have different bandwidth needs. InnovationOne thing to note is that Pro has completely dropped his argument that there is empirical evidence showing that regulation of telecommunications companies in Europe leads to less innovation, and has negative effects, such as limiting consumer access to the Internet. Previously, I argued that this conclusion cannot be reached on the basis of the evidence he has provided, because it does not show a causal relationship between the two. Furthermore, I provided a study by Chang et. al which shows that net neutrality has the opposite effect on innovation as Pro claims; it is actually beneficial in regard to innovation (especially infrastructure), rather than detrimental. Pro has not attempted to refute this evidence. Thus, it can be concluded that there are no good reasons to believe that innovation will be negatively affected by net neutrality, only positively affected. HouseholdPro appears to concede that an ISP’s pricing plan as advocated by him is also dependant on the ISP’s actions. However, he still argues that network congestion is more likely to be solved without net neutrality than with net neutrality. His argument relies on the premise that “with net neutrality, ISPs are not required to upgrade their systems. ” Firstly, this is completely unjustified. It is also clearly false. In the previous round, I brought up McKay’s observation that network congestion is also due to the ISP’s method of data transmission between different servers. We can extend this to show that with net neutrality, ISPs have an incentive to upgrade this servers. This stems from the fact that because ISPs are not able to introduce their pricing schemes, they must find different ways to deal with net congestion, such as upgrading their systems. Conversely, if net neutrality was not introduced, and ISPs were to introduce a pricing scheme as advocated by Pro, they would have no incentive in upgrading their systems, because the problem is already solved. Thus, Pro’s logic falls back on him. ConclusionThis debate took an interesting direction (largely because I misread Pro’s Round 1 and thought that he had the sole BOP for a while), but nevertheless, as we are at the end of the debate, I contend that there are good reasons why the audience should vote Con. (1) Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof, because all of his arguments fail in one way or another. There are no successful arguments against net neutrality offered by Pro. (2) I have shown that by refuting Pro’s arguments against net neutrality, I am implicitly making a case for net neutrality, due to the way Pro presents his case. This remained undisputed by Pro by the end of the debate. (3) Pro has dropped many of his core arguments. For instance, his argument about Europe’s internet, and his argument that a rejection of net neutrality fuels competition (note that he never addressed this, after I called out his bare assertion in Round 2. ) (4) I have made positive arguments that have been unrefuted and untouched by Pro. For instance, net neutrality is beneficial towards innovation (from Cheng et. al) and that net neutrality helps dissipate monopolies and duopolies (Round 2). The resolution has been negated.

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 USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Content: Many thanks to my opponent for a great debate and prompt replies!-To confirm Opposition’s note that we are either accepting or rejecting net neutrality as a general principle/concept, this is correct-we are considering all forms of network neutrality legislation.-That said, Opposition argues that the logical connective cannot be made between the FCC infringing upon freedom of speech and the USFG rejecting net neutrality legislation because my arguments only address the FCC as the agency of said legislation. There are several flaws with Opposition’s argumentation here. First, Opposition overlooks the fact that ALL current network neutrality legislation would employ the FCC as the enforcer. Opposition’s sole example of legislation which does not require the FCC as enforcer is “for instance, ones that in order to be enforced, requires the FCC to regulate ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner.” This, again, uses the FCC as enforcer; unless Opposition can produce an example to the contrary, this argument is irrelevant. My primary issue with this statement is that Opposition suggests that the FCC is not currently tasked with operating in a “highly transparent and democratic manner.” They absolutely are! Yet we constantly see with government a gap between what they are obligated to do, and what they do in reality. Unless Opposition presents examples of specific legislation spelling out exactly how such transparency is achieved and grants solvency, this is simply a hypothetical solution. Further, Opposition’s argument that a strong incentive to reinstate the fairness doctrine would be irrelevant in a ‘highly transparent’ organization is also making broad assumptions about the commission. Regardless of how transparent they are, their idea of ‘fair’ still does not line up with ours, and their ideology will continue to influence their decisions regardless of whether we achieve the ‘transparency’ Opposition argues for.-I believe Opposition’s objections to the use of China as an example are unfounded for several reasons. First, Opposition argues that this is a slippery slope, that the US could never mirror China for internet censorship. Note that this was not the intent of my point; the use of China as an example is to show the similarities between censorship in China and what would be achieved by net neutrality in the US. Journalist Rebecca MacKinnon states “The intention is not the same as China’s Great Firewall, a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar” in reference to SOPA and net neutrality [1]. Judging by the historical implications of the FCC I introduced in my last round, it is not unreasonable to suggest this as a possibility we should at the very least be wary of; as such, I reject Opposition’s argument of ‘slippery slope,’ for the reason that there is a very clear. Opposition then states “infringement upon freedom of speech would probably never happen due to the differences between the two countries.” It is this type of unguarded stance that allows our rights to become infringed upon. Regardless of socio-political differences between America and China, the characteristics inherent to human nature which cause the desire to influence the opinions of others in favor of self are clearly existent in both nations. Then of course there’s the fact that the FCC has already infringed upon our freedom of speech, something Opposition has yet to attempt to contradict.-A crux issue in this debate is the question of whether or not ISPs have the right to block out specific content, ie. decide what they make available to clients. I have already made it clear that I support this right for ISPs. Opposition has argued that this result in legitimate content being blocked from users; so what? ISPs as providers of a service should be able to decide exactly what their service entails. This does not mean I support spontaneous blocking of sites; I do agree that ISPs should be open with consumers about what they have access to-I simply believe they are within their rights to block sites if they wish. Secondly, even should each point in support of ISPs having this right be rejected, Opposition is still required to suggest reasons they should not have this right in order to receive a vote under net benefits, a burden Opposition has not upheld. I strongly urge Opposition to present reasons why this is outside the right of ISPs, as the only argument presented thus far is that it isn’t best for the consumer-this is why consumers change ISPs. This is where the free market comes in; if one company doesn’t satisfy the consumer, the market provides a new option to make a profit through satisfying this new market of consumers. -I apologize for omitting this from my first response, but I concede Opposition’s point that I never explicitly stated that an open internet is more desirable than a closed internet. To clarify, my stance is that an open internet is more desirable, and further hold to my contention that net neutrality legislation will result in a net decrease in the openness of the internet. Opposition argues that allowing ISPs to restrict content access would result in a closed internet; I assert that this regardless is a net increase in the internet’s openness. First, with numerous ISPs and the free market allowing for other options to emerge for consumers, the internet remains open, in contrast to net neutrality which introduces the FCC as presider over the internet, a clear introduction to a closed internet. Thus, net neutrality will result in a net reduction of internet openness, regardless of slight restriction by ISPs. We are, essentially, choosing the greater evil, which is government censorship/control of the internet. -I would also like to point out that net neutrality concentrates the decision of what is available into the hands of five commission members, as opposed to numerous ISPs and their corporation structures. I personally would choose option B any day. At a certain point, there is always someone choosing what is available to us for viewing; opting against net neutrality dilutes this into many, many more hands than the government, which is certainly preferable for the pursuit of freedom of speech and internet content availability.-For innovation: let me rephrase. These are different and are considered different by ISPs because they use differing amounts of bandwidth. Stipulating disconnects between descriptive and normative statements will not eliminate the technological differences between each of these; Opposition is essentially avoiding the recognition that there is a reason for ISPs to regard each uniquely. Just as we place prices on items in stores based off of the cost of production, ISPs place costs on types of data because of cost to supply it.-With regards to regulations in Europe: There most certainly are net neutrality regulations in place in Europe [3,4,5]. Further, by regulations in Europe, I am referring additionally to the European regulation framework that establishes public broadband as a public utility; the service-based competition system established by law has resulted in a system where no new investment or infrastructure is introduced into the system, causing a net loss in innovation. Broadband investment per household in the US is twice that in Europe; coverage is better; and basic broadband is cheaper in the US than in Europe [8,9]. The discrepancy between your statistics and mine can be found in the fact that the cost comparison of broadband in Europe is strictly for broadband, not a bundle of broadband, TV, and phone, which appears to be the focus of your cited statistics. France is the sole exception here; France actually has exceptional broadband services nd prices relative to the rest of Europe.Householda) ISPs may adopt any model of pricing they decide upon; they are independent businesses supplying a service to a consumer. I would contend that net benefits would be achieved in rejecting net neutrality, which I feel I have made sufficiently clear.b) My claims have been justified; the sources included in my last argument confirm this. Further, Opposition is being selective in quoting my arguments. I concede that both allow for lessening of congestion; I also state “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.” Thus I hold net benefits here stronger than Opposition’s case does.-I feel I have sufficiently responded to each argument presented by the Opposition. However, I also feel the Opposition has not presented a case worthy of a win. Based off of the resolution, Opposition is tasked with arguing in favor of net neutrality; Opposition has failed to present any substantial arguments in favor of network neutrality, including why ISPs should not be able to engage in independent business models. Net benefits requires Opposition to create a clear image of how net neutrality is beneficial, not simply to attack the status quo. Should we not see this stance develop, it is impossible to assign net benefits to Opposition.Sources:[1] http://www.nytimes.com... [3] https://gigaom.com...[4] http://www.forbes.com...[5] http://www.bbc.com... [8] http://www.nationalreview.com...[9] http://www.heritage.org...

Title: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Content: Thanks, Pro, for your quick yet substantive rebuttals. Freedom of SpeechFirst, I would like to provide a general criticism of Pro’s argument that the FCC would through net neutrality, infringe upon freedom of speech. Note that the resolution of the debate concerns whether “the USFG should reject net neutrality.” But he has not specified exactly which form of net neutrality legislation the USFG ought the reject. Thus, we are left to concluding that he is arguing that the USFG ought to reject net neutrality as a general principle; a concept - in effect, all forms of net neutrality. Pro too notes that he was quite interested in “the concept of net neutrality”. As a result, this debate should focus on net neutrality as a principle of a concept. However, his argument - the FCC would likely infringe upon freedom of speech through net neutrality – is not sufficient to reach the conclusion – the USFG ought to reject net neutrality as a general principle; in effect, all forms of net neutrality. This is because Pro’s argument has a very narrow scope; it only deals with the FCC as the enforcer, rather than net neutrality itself. In effect, his argument does not take into consideration potential net neutrality legislation; for instance, ones that in order to be enforced, requires the FCC to regulate ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner. In this scenario, it may be that the FCC has a strong incentive in reinvoking the Fairness Doctrine, but this is ultimately irrelevant. Pro argues that because previously, the FCC has regulated content on TV and radio and was allowed to decide what was content-neutral, the FCC is likely to infringe upon freedom of speech on the Internet. But the problem is that the FCC was allowed to decide on their interpretation on what was content-neutral. As noted, the resolution is dealing with net neutrality as a principle. In legislation of net neutrality where the FCC was not allowed to define “content neutral”, this argument would no longer apply. In addition, Pro neglected to mention that structural differences between the operation of TV + Radio and the Internet. Leonhardt notes that:“the Internet “decouples” the strong link between transmission and content; therefore, there is nothing on the Internet that is directly analogous to a television or radio broadcaster. Television broadcasters both transmit data and control its content, so that when a person watches NBC, they are only seeing NBC’s programming. Conversely, on the Internet, the signal comes to a home from an Internet Service Provider (ISP), such as AT&T, Comcast, Road Runner, or Verizon.57 However, once a consumer has a signal, they can view any content at all—even content created by a competing ISP.” (1) Consequently, we also should by default reject Pro’s slippery slope argument regarding the possibility of net neutrality leading to censorship as seen in China, because it falls to the same “general criticism” I already made above. But even if we do not reject such an argument by default we could make a variety of criticisms. Firstly, I noted in the 2nd round that Pro’s argument is logically fallacious because it commits the slippery slope fallacy. Pro never responded to this, although he did indicate that he would eventually respond to all arguments, so I’ll wait for him to do so. I also argued that because of the socio-political differences between in America and China, it is unlikely that net neutrality would lead to censorship like seen in China. Pro does not dispute this point; he merely argues that government officials still have the intention of keeping in power. However, this is irrelevant, because I am arguing that regardless of the government’s will to stay in power, infringement upon freedom of speech would probably never happen due to the differences between the two countries. CompetitionPreviously, I argued that because there are legitimate uses of BitTorrent, Comcast should not have blocked BitTorrent traffic. Pro’s reply misses the mark. Firstly, he argues that the “site should solely be halted because it traffics pirated content, regardless of legal activities”. However, Comcast was not solely blocking sites that hold pirated content available through BitTorrent, they were blocking BitTorrent traffic in general. In addition, there many examples of sites that use BitTorrent for solely legal purposes and have no pirated content. I provided the example of the Internet Archive in my previous round. To elaborate upon my last round, I also suggested that in order to download and update specific games, one would use a client that is dependent on BitTorrent technology. Furthermore, Pro shifts burden-of-proof. His argument is dependent on the assumption (aka. Hidden premise) that ISPs have the right to block out specific content ie. BitTorrent traffic, thus he is expected to defend the premise, just like any other premise. I don’t have to provide an argument against this assumption, I merely have to ensure that his hidden premise is not affirmed, and I can do this by providing arguments of my own, criticising his arguments for the hidden premise, or both. In the 2nd Round, Pro also notes that he is arguing that net neutrality would take steps towards a closed Internet, rather than an open Internet, and thus it should be rejected. I showed that in order for this to lead logically to the USFG rejecting net neutrality, Pro would have to assume that an open Internet is desirable, and that a closed Internet is undesirable. I noted that I too support an open internet. Thus, this debate is run on the parameters that an open Internet is desirable, whilst a closed Internet is undesirable. Recall that the definition of closed Internet that is applied to this debate is: “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.”If Pro is willing to defend Comcast’s blocking of BitTorrent traffic/websites - which is a textbook example of “explicitly filter[ing] content” - he is in effect defending actions leading to a closed Internet. However, this makes his case inconsistent, because he is arguing that net neutrality leads to a closed Internet, and thus should be rejected while at the same time supporting other actions which lead to a closed Internet. Innovationa) Pro misread me; I was not affirming that the value of the examples to be intrinsic, I was saying that those were relative. For instance, I would place the highest value on the e-Book, then the online calculator, and next-to-no value on the funny home video. In contrast, somebody may else may have the exact opposite. If ISPs were to regulate content as Pro proposes, then the problem of how the ISP should discern the value of each of these examples is raised. b) I argued that Pro needs to show how the descriptive statement logically leads to the normative statement. This is because descriptive statements only deal with how the world works, in effect, what is. However, a normative statement deals with how the world ought to be, in other worlds, what should be the case, and thus lack logical connection. (2) Pro has not shown how they logically do connect; he is merely restating the descriptive statement. To show how the descriptive statement leads to the normative statement, at the very least, Pro must assume that different entities ought to be treated differently because of their differences. Householda) The winner of this debate is determined on the basis of what would be “net beneficial”. Thus, I am essentially arguing that in the case of ISPs having to price content at different prices in the case of net neutrality being rejected, negative consequences will follow. So my question is relevant towards the debate, and thus must be answered. b) It was conceded last round that rejection of net neutrality nevertheless allows for solving the problem of network congestion. This is an important concession on behalf of Pro. Nevertheless, he makes the argument that “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” and “due to the enormous cost of doing so”. But Pro has not justified neither claims, so at this point, we can only conclude that both are conjectures. Pro also argues that “a rejection of net neutrality would result in an immediate solution; the institution of net neutrality legislation allows for solution, but depends on actions by ISPs independent of legislation”, and thus we should favour the rejection of net neutrality. But a rejection of net neutrality does not result in an immediate solution. ISPs would still have to deal with a variety of questions such as how they ought to discern the importance of different content; which ones to put in the “fast lane” and how what form of pricing they should offer customers. In addition, a rejection of net neutrality legislation only entails that data should not be treated equally, it doesn’t immediately lead to the ISP enforcing the particular pricing scheme that Pro advocates; they merely have the freedom to do so. Thus, a rejection of net neutrality offers no particular advantage to an affirmation of net neutrality in managing web congestion. ConclusionPro still needs to address several criticisms that I had made in the previous round. Many of the criticisms that he has supposedly addressed – as seen in this round – still ultimately triumph. Furthermore, a number of original objections were raised in this round, also rendering Pro’s counterarguments to be unviable. Thus, Pro still has not fulfilled his burden of proof. The resolution is negated. Sources(1) http://scholarship.law.duke.edu...(2) https://en.wikipedia.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. Content: Where is your rebuttal in that? We cannot have a debate when someone just throws an opinion out without any evidence, I just showed you how it is not fair and all you have is "I am a moderate therefore net neutrality is fair." I do not know if you took the time to do some research but I am a moderate as well but I still believe it harms small business and conservatives, so please give me something to work off of next time.

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: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality has historical precedent

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: 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 Content: To conclude, I'll do a short rebuttal, and then I'll do a recap of the whole debate. == Rebuttal == (1) Pro says that net neutrality was a "founding principle" of the Internet. First, Pro's simply wrong: "net neutrality" is a recent phrase, coined by Tim Wu in 2003. [1] Second, Pro offers no source for his claim, so it's unreliable (and again, wrong). Third, even if Pro's right that net neutrality is a "founding principle," that's irrelevant to this debate. The issue we're debating is whether to require net neutrality, or whether to allow entrepreneurs to experiment (e.g. Lariat Wireless, discussed in Round 2 and dropped by Pro). (2) Pro says antitrust laws "don't work because regulation of ISPs are horrible." But that makes no sense. Regulations aren't relevant to how the antitrust laws work. Antitrust laws apply in the absence of regulations. Antitrust laws prevent Amazon from blocking other online sites because the antitrust laws explicitly prohibit the "attempt to monopolize" and the "abuse of monopoly power." There's no other way to characterize "paying to block your competitors" than an "abuse of monopoly power" or an "attempt to monopolize." Both are illegal under our antitrust laws. (3) Pro continues to assert that the "FCC guy" was "funded by version," but he provides no source for that claim. There's no reason to think FCC commissioners are funded by ISPs. (4) Pro says the FCC passed net neutrality rules. Yes, that's true. But that's also completely irrelevant to the debate, which is about whether there should be net neutrality laws, not whether there exist any net neutrality laws. And if the debate's about whether there exists net neutrality laws, then Pro still loses because the FCC rules haven't gone into effect yet, they're being challenged in the courts (and the last couple net neutrality rules the FCC approved were struck down by courts), and a change in administration could reverse the FCC's rule. (5) I agree with Pro that government should regulate some things, including some aspects of telecommunications. But there's no need to regulate net neutrality. == Recap == The argument against net neutrality is simple: net neutrality doesn't distinguish procompetitive discrimination from anticompetitive discrimination. Pro never challenged that argument. Instead, he claims that net neutrality laws are necessary to prevent anticompetitive discrimination. But as I explained throughout the debate, that's simply untrue. Our antitrust laws -- which have developed over the past 100 years -- are enough to protect consumers and competition from anticompetitive discrimination. The antitrust laws also allow entrepreneurs like Lariat Wireless (see Round 2) to experiment with procompetitive forms of data discrimination. The idea is to cater to the consumer, and in doing so, lower prices. The net result is that more people can get online than if we had a rigid net neutrality law, because prices are lower. It also leads to creative business models, which spurts growth and innovation. Pro never contests the substance of my argument. His only points throughout the debate focus on showing that ISPs can harm consumers and competition in the absence of net neutrality. But Pro offered no sourcing for any of his claims, even though I asked multiple times. The reason is because most of his claims aren't true. Moreover, I showed throughout the debate that Pro's wrong, because the antitrust laws already -- and the keyword there is "already" -- stop ISPs from harming consumers and competition. Pro never argues otherwise. Thus, there's simply no reason to displace our antitrust laws, which are flexible and fact-based, with a rigid net neutrality law that doesn't distinguish the procompetitive from the anticompetitive.

Title: The Internet: The Last True Example of Free Speech (Net Neutrality) Content: Mr Believer (Pro), thank you for proposing this interesting topic. Pro is in favor of internet neutrality, or transparency, or equality, or freedom - as opposed to the controls proposed by Virgin Media to limit access to certain sites based on bandwidth or advertising arrangements. Well, while I agree that a China-esque approach to Internet control sounds dreadful, this scheme is not being proposed by a government but by a corporation, which is also one of the last vestiges of real freedom. Corporations can do whatever they like in the free market. If they want to sell pickled rabbit turds, they can. They are free to try...and fail. As such, Virgin Media is free to try this bandwidth throttling scheme. If their customers like it, they will prosper. If their customers hate it, they will fail and the customers will switch to other vendors. If no other vendors currently exist, I promise you they soon will. In the United States, telephony was once controlled by a very small cabal of large corporations. However, people didn't like the policies of those corporations, and now we have dozens of contract-free, internet-based and cell-based telephone company options. While Virgin's scheme sounds dastardly, it is merely an expression of the free market. They are free to try. If you, the consumer, don't like their service, don't pay for it. Net Neutrality is not in danger.

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: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality protects freedoms and openness of the Internet:

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: 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: 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: Net neutrality may not be good for ISPs, but good overall. Content: It is not essential that network neutrality be good for Internet Service Providers, so long as it is judged good for the public and websites overall, and sufficiently tolerable for ISPs. A good analogy is any piece of consumer protection regulation, such as seat belts or food-packing industry regulations, which certainly cost the businesses under consideration a little bit of money, but do so in the interest of the general public. Therefore, any conclusion that net neutrality is somewhat harmful to network owners does not mean that the idea of network neutrality is, overall, a bad idea.

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: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality impairs development of broadband infrastructure:

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: 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 Content: Ok For the last time I never said Net Neutrality. (which I'm now just going to say NN for) has been a law. I said I was a founding principle of the internet. If in your last round you claim I said it was a law you're either intentionally using a straw man or your an idiot. Then you say ebay and amazon couldn't pay to have other online shopping sites block because of anti-trust laws. Also in your final paragraph you say I never addressed you anti-trust argument. Yes I did earlier I just got tired of doing it every round. I will say it again. Anti-trust laws don't work because regulation of ISP's are horrible. Then you say that FCC guy wasn't payed by ISP's and even if he does it doesn't matter. 1. Yes he was funded by version 2. You would trust people who are getting payed by people to talk their side. So if Bud light payed a scientist to say you should drink 10,000 of these every year because it's super good for you you would trust him? If you say no same principle applies here. And I already addressed you're final paragraph. Like I said either way NN passed the FCC. I'm happy about it. The internet will continue to be a awesome place. One more thing. You mentioned government regulation like it should never exist. However in some situations it should be there. You're for affirmative action on your big issues page. Government regulation. Am I saying NN is as important as minorities having equal rights, no. However in some situations government should have regulations.

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 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: 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: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality protects consumers under near monopolies

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: 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 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: 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. 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: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality prevents anti-competitive acts by network owners

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: 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: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Content: I shall do this by refuting all his contentions, and in doing so, show that there are no exclusive benefits in rejecting net neutrality. Pro essentially argues that the USFG should reject net neutrality because “net neutrality does not, [in fact], result in a more open internet, but actually takes steps towards a closed internet. ” Note that in order for him to use this kind of reasoning and reach the position that the USFG should reject net neutrality, he needs to make the assumption that an open internet is more desirable than a closed internet, which he has not done. Personally, I do believe that an open internet is more desirable than a closed internet, so I’m on his side on this, but I reject all contentions that he makes in attempting to show that net neutrality takes steps towards a closed internet. Let’s see his contentions. Freedom of Speech Pro argues that enforcement of net neutrality would stifle freedom of speech. According to him, “anyone claiming that new network neutrality regulations through the FCC will result in ‘greater freedom of speech’ is frankly either lying, or deluded. ” Given that he has made a very strong claim, one would expect him to give solid reasons, or evidence, in support of his claim. Unfortunately, he has not done so. Essentially, his argument amounts to that the FCC doesn’t support freedom of speech - as a matter of fact, it is against freedom of speech - and consequently, enforcement of net neutrality laws would, by giving the government more control of the Internet, thus stifling freedom of speech. Such an argument is problematic in several ways:(a) Regarding his claim that the FCC is not supportive, and never will be supportive of freedom of speech, he gives no reasoning or evidence whatsoever. Essentially, his argument amounts to a bare-assertion fallacy. (b) Enforcement of net neutrality laws do not give the government more power to control what is available to us on the Internet. This is because the FCC does not seek to regulate the Internet, instead, it is regulating the way that telecommunication industries operate their Internet services. Perhaps in anticipation of (b), Pro creates a slippery slope argument. He observes that the Chinese government strongly regulates telecommunication industries in China, thus promoting censorship and the rejection of freedom of speech. Thus, Pro argues, net neutrality regulation may be the first step further governmental control and restriction over the Internet. There are multiple things wrong with this argument:(a) Slippery slope arguments “[avoid] engaging with the issue and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. ” Thus, they are fallacious (1)(b)There is a big difference between the way regulation of telecommunication industries as advocated by the supporter of net neutrality in the US and the way telecommunication industries are regulated in China. In China, actual website content is blocked, while enforcement of net neutrality laws only lead to the regulation of how the telecommunication industry can transfer information on the Internet. Thus, Pro needs to give reasons to how net neutrality regulation would lead to the type of censorship observed in China. (c) China and the U. S cannot be compared, because of the different socio-political situations between the two countries. For one, the Chinese government has a strong incentive/motive in committing acts of internet censorship and restricting freedom of speech - eg. to silence dissent and preserve the political system present in China by restricting knowledge of other political systems - while the U. S government does not. Second, the U. S is far more democratic than China - it’s citizens have a greater influence on governmental policy, for an example of Internet policy, look at SOPA. Thus, we should be skeptical over his claims that net neutrality would eventually lead to a closed internet in this sense. Net Neutrality and Competition Pro argues that Comcast’s blocking of torrent sites housing pirated content was justified, and that “arguing this [Comcast’s actions] as a supporting factor of net neutrality is ludicrous. ”(a) Adherents of net neutrality do not use Comcast’s actions as a reason for promoting net neutrality. Rather, they use this as an example to illustrate the fact that ISPs are not to be trusted with regulating and controlling the Internet, thus acting as a reason against Pro’s position that the USFG should reject net neutrality, rather than a positive reason for net neutrality. (b) Pro cherry-picks information by only mentioning that Comcast was blocking torrent sites housing pirated content. Rather, Comcast was blocking BitTorrent traffic in general, as his source indicates. (2) It is important to note that BitTorrent is not solely used for pirating content - there plenty of legitimate uses such as legally downloading game updates, and the Internet Archive - because BitTorrent is merely a means to spread information. (3) Thus, blocking BitTorrent traffic would also infringe upon legal uses of the technology. (c) Pro has not shown that it is the “prerogative” of ISPs to block illegal and pirated content. Indeed, it could be argued that the sole purpose of ISPs is to provide Internet access, and thus they should not be controlling what their clients are doing on the Internet, because it is out of their bounds. Pro also provides several reasons why rejecting net-neutrality laws do not promote monopolies. For instance, he argues that net neutrality will not end monopolies, instead it makes it harder to end monopolies. (a) Advocates of net neutrality do not argue that net neutrality regulation will end monopolies; instead they are arguing that rejection of net neutrality will promote the development of monopolies/duopolies etc, or that net neutrality regulation will make it easier to end monopolies/duopolies etc. Thus, Pro’s statement is non-topical. (b) Essentially all of this segment regarding competition is pure assertion. Pro has not justified any of the claims he makes here, and thus on this basis alone, all of his claims should be discounted until he provides justification. Innovation (a) Pro claims that Internet content such as “an online calculator, a funny home video, and an e-Book” should not be treated equally, because they are not equal in importance. But the importance of such content is not intrinsic, but relative to different people. Thus, the question of whose perspective discerns the importance of online content is raised. (b) Pro argues that because the various content on the Internet are different, they ought to be treated differently. However, he makes the jump from a descriptive statement (various content on the Internet are different) to a normative statement (they ought to be treated differently) arbitrarily, and does not show how the descriptive statement logically leads to the normative statement. Pro uses an analogy of a household in order to illustrate why rejecting net neutrality would be beneficial, and extends this logic towards an entire community. Fundamentally, this is a question of how to deal with network congestion, and Pro argues that rejecting net neutrality would help solve this problem. However: (a) In the case that net neutrality is rejected, and ISPs are able to deal with network congestion through allowing in variation of pricing Internet access according to how one uses the Internet, Pro does not elaborate on which method ISPs are to do this. Do customers sign up to an Internet package which is optimised for what they are to do with the Internet (eg. a package optimised for watching Netflix)? Do customers sign up to a rather blank Internet package, and the pricing is determined later on how customers use their Internet? Both are in my view, problematic, and I would like Pro to elaborate on the specific details of his view. (b) The fact that the two people in the household are unable to complete simple activities on the Internet such as Google searches (this also applies when Pro’s argument is extended to the community) does not mean that net neutrality should be rejected. S. Derek Turner notes that net neutrality regulation as pushed for still “leave ISPs completely free to address congestion via reasonable network management methods. ” (4) Thus, the benefit of being able to address network congestion effectively as argued by proponents of net neutrality rejection is not exclusive to their position, and net neutrality still allows room to fix these problems. Pro claims that “similar regulations are place in Europe”. However, what regulations are he talking about? Net neutrality regulations? His Source 4 states that there are no established net neutrality regulations in the European Union. So where in Europe is he talking about? Regardless of this, it is a factual mistake to claim that “broadband services are significantly cheaper in the US”, when in reality, broadband service is actually much more expensive in the U. S when compared to many areas in Europe (3 times more expensive than in the U. K and France) (5) Conclusion In this round, I have refuted the core of Pro’s arguments, showing that none of his 3 main contentions stand up to scrutiny, and as a result, show that there are no benefits (exclusive) in rejecting net neutrality. Thus, Pro has not affirmed his burden of proof, and the resolution is negated. Sources (1) . https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...(2) . https://torrentfreak.com...(3) . http://www.makeuseof.com...(4) . http://www.freepress.net...(5) . http://www.bbc.com...

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: Risk of a two-tier Internet Content: This has absolutely nothing to do with censorship – not having net neutrality will not stop users accessing certain sites, just make it slower. Data from some points of origin, especially games and file-sharing programmes slow down the entire network. It’s unfair to other users.

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: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality was effectively the law until 2005

Title: The Internet: The Last True Example of Free Speech (Net Neutrality) Content: Here is a bit from the main net neutrality supporting site, savetheinternet. com, under the FAQ section. Who wants to get rid of net neutrality? The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner -- want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all. They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking their competitors. Which means it isn't just Virgin Media that's heading into this. They're followed by many other companies as well. Now, I know you might think, "Well, people can just switch to Embarq or one of the 'safe' IPs" But that wouldn't work exactly as planned. Why wouldn't Embarq take that opportunity to raise their prices? No matter how you look at it, we have to pay more. I know that sounds a bit greedy, but in times like this, with our economy as unstable as it is, this simply cannot turn out well. Otherwise, my arguments on the unethical nature of net neutrality still stand. I can understand if you don't intend to disagree with them, as well. As the consumer, I can't begin to think of a scenario where getting rid of net neutrality would be beneficial. Either way, I had fun. And it looks net neutrality is winning. I hear action was recently taken against Comcast.

Title: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality saves Internet as ideal marketplace

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: Insert topic here. Content: Hate crime enhancements are unjust in America: Pro John McCain made a very poor choice in choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate: Pro (For this one, I will pick another suitable candidate who he could have chosen) Net Neutrality should be made into law and enforced: Pro Your choice. Whatever the topic is, this should be a good debate. Good luck.

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: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality properly separates Internet access and content.

Title: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality provides legal consistency that is good for ISPs.

Title: Net neutrality Content: Pro seems to think we've had net neutrality for years. But that is simply untrue. The entire controversy surrounding net neutrality concerns proposed laws, not laws that already exist. [4] Unless Pro can cite a single net neutrality law that's existed for years, his entire argument falls apart. The reality is that we've never had net neutrality and the Internet has not only been fun but grown at an incredible pace. As PayPal founder Peter Thiel notes, "[n]et neutrality has not been necessary to date. I don"t see any reason why it"s suddenly become important, when the Internet has functioned quite well for the past 15 years without it ... Government attempts to regulate technology have been extraordinarily counterproductive in the past." [5] -- Pro says "in many places you only have one [ISP] option." That's true, but the big companies aren't to blame. Local governments are the problem. "Before building out new networks, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must negotiate with local governments for access to publicly owned 'rights of way' so they can place their wires above and below both public and private property. ISPs also need 'pole attachment' contracts with public utilities so they can rent space on utility poles for above-ground wires, or in ducts and conduits for wires laid underground." [6] The result: "Local governments and their public utilities charge ISPs far more than these things actually cost." [6] ISPs try to enter new areas all the time. The problem is that entry costs -- not the laying wires part but the costs of negotiating with local governments -- are extremely high. That's something neither net neutrality nor antitrust laws will change. The irony of Pro's position is that it asks for MORE government regulation when government is ALREADY the biggest obstacle preventing competition among ISPs. The solution is getting local governments to allow the free market to do its thing. That's how you get more competition among ISPs, which in turn lowers prices. -- Pro claims that "people do nothing because they are bought off" and "there are many loopholes." But that's also not true. Pro gives no source for his claims because the claims are bunk. ISPs aren't bribing anyone. I'm not even sure who they'd bribe, but note that the only way bribes work is under a regulatory scheme, which is what Pro supports. I'm the one arguing that we let the free market do its thing, which means bribes wouldn't help anyone. As for loopholes, again I have no idea what Pro's talking about. If by loopholes, Pro's referring to the antitrust laws, there aren't really any loopholes in the law. You either show harm to consumers or competition, or you don't show harm to consumers or competition. It's economics all the way down. If you show harm, it's illegal. That's how the laws work. So if an ISP has a monopoly on providing broadband, and it charges monopoly prices for "fast-lanes," they'd be found liable and/or guilty under current antitrust laws. There's no need to build a rigid regulatory scheme on top of that. -- 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. ATT has even said that under a net neutrality regime, they'd have no incentive to invest in broadband infrastructure. The reality is that net neutrality chokes broadband competition, because it prevents experimentation in business models and pricing. We don't need net neutrality because the antitrust laws already protect consumers and competition from anticompetitive discrimination on the Internet. Broadband providers can't do anything that would hurt consumers or competition. If they do, it means they have monopoly power (because you can't impose monopoly prices without monopoly power, as consumers would just buy your service from your competitors). And if they have monopoly power and abuse that power (by extracting monopoly rents), they're already doing something illegal under current antitrust laws. Which is why FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has said that the perceived threats from ISPs to deceive consumers, degrade content, or disfavor the content that they don"t like are non-existent: "The evidence of these continuing threats? There is none; it"s all anecdote, hypothesis, and hysteria. A small ISP in North Carolina allegedly blocked VoIP calls a decade ago. Comcast capped BitTorrent traffic to ease upload congestion eight years ago. Apple introduced Facetime over Wi-Fi first, cellular networks later. Examples this picayune and stale aren't enough to tell a coherent story about net neutrality. The bogeyman never had it so easy." [7] ISPs don't slow the Internet down in a free market; they compete with each other, which creates incentives to speed the Internet up. Net neutrality would choke that competition. [4] http://money.cnn.com... [5] http://www.nationalreview.com... [6] http://www.wired.com... [7] http://www.fcc.gov...

Title: Life after Death Content: Thank you. If you like, I'd like to start another debate. I've been assured by my ISP that my connection is now stable. If you agree, I'll create a new debate and invite you directly.

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: Resolved: The government should be able to regulate the internet Content: Argument 1: In case of emergency, it is important to have the ability to regulate. Op. Argument: "I don't see any threats of terrorism" Response: First, there is a difference between regulation and censorship. Regulating has to do with net neutrality as much as censorship. Second, it doesn't matter if you don't see the cyber terror threats. The fact is that they exist. It was exemplified by Sony, and there is proof in my evidence. Third, if you don't understand how government regulation would help, follow the link I gave in round 2 for more information. Argument 2: Net neutrality, econ Op Argument: they spy on us Response: Again, if you don't want someone spying on you, it is your duty to elect leaders who will produce anti-spying legislation. It is important that we deal with the real threat over my opponent being paranoid. My opponent has shown no evidence that the government's goal is to spy via or heavily censor the internet. Argument 3: Net neutrality, ethically Op argument: Governing isn't neutral Response: We need to look at what is definite. Right now on the internet, there is definitely a lack of net neutrality, more money equates to a larger internet presence. However, the government is an uncertainty. I think it is important to not treat the government like a foreign entity. We are electing them from us. They are not out to harm us. Additionally, when my opponent says "It's just taking some of the power from the rich and giving all the power to the government", he/she is mistaken. Maintaining net neutrality is about giving the rich and the poor equal opportunities on the internet. Argument 4: Protecting privacy Op Argument: Government can't be trusted with privacy. Response: Business have real interest in taking information whereas the government does not. We again need to look at what is certain. Although I disagree with this, we can call the government a maybe in terms of privacy for the sake of argument. We should trust a maybe to protect us instead of letting companies that are with certain trying to get our information succeed. Stepping back, it remains important to not treat the government like a foreign entity. The government consists of people we have given our trust by voting into office. We need to put our safety in their hands. These are the four voting points in this round, I urge a pro ballot.

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: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality forces network owners to operate in suboptimal ways

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: 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: Network neutrality Content: Leading Internet experts opposing net neutrality:

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: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality regulates service providers, not Internet

Title: Network neutrality Content: Internet has been successful w/o govt regs like net neutrality

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. Content: Do you have any non partisan evidence contradicting net neutrality? Do you know what it even measns?

Title: Net neutrality. Content: I have told you what net neutrality means two times now. I also do not have to be partisan, this is a debate for a reason. Please, actually try to have a reasonable argument in this final round, other than me being partisan or asking for the meaning.

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.

Title: Network neutrality Content: Net Neutrality may restrict value-added services

Title: Net neutrality Content: Pro's entire argument reduces to a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions, with no support in any factual evidence. The lack of factual evidence is telling, because the simple truth is that there isn't any factual evidence to support Pro's assertions. For example, Pro continues to assert that "net neutrality has always existed." But as I've said previously, that's simply untrue. Pro said to "google it," so I did, and this is what I found: "Until 2015, there were no clear legal restrictions against practices impeding net neutrality." http://en.wikipedia.org... Pro says that "without net neutrality Amazon and Ebay could pay AT&T to block other online shopping sites which kills competition." But as I've already explained multiple times, Amazon and EBay can't do that. Current antitrust laws already make that illegal, so further regulations on top of the antitrust laws aren't necessary. Pro also states: "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." But that's also completely unsubstantiated. Just because someone opposes net neutrality doesn't mean they're paid by big ISPs. And even if they were, that doesn't mean they're wrong. Pro keeps saying to Google things that are simply false. Pro also drops all of my antitrust arguments. He doesn't even mention the word antitrust once in his argument. He just wants to pretend that the antitrust laws don't exist. But of course, they do. So net neutrality regulations are simply not necessary. Pro hasn't addressed that argument.

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: 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: 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: Network neutrality Content: Network neutrality damages competition and niche suppliers

Title: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality will force ISPs to ask permission from FCC.

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: Network neutrality Content: Govt regs like Net Neutrality have unintended consequences

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: Internet providers have a right to control their networks Content: "Editorial: Net neutrality not so neutral." An Orange County Register. September 25th, 2009: "What's at stake is who gets control, and who pays the cost. We believe businesses, yes even big corporations like AT&T, have a right to control what they own and to operate without financial penalty imposed by the government."

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

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 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: Network neutrality Content: ISPs have a right to recover costs from heavy bandwidth users

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: 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."