Debate Info

For Against
Debate Score:9
Total Votes:9
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 For (3)
 Against (4)

Debate Creator

Conro(767) pic

Net Neutrality

Net neutrality, as supported by the recent FCC regulations and affirmed by the new Senate bill not passing that would have ended those regulations, is perhaps one of the most important issues facing the internet these days. Currently, ISP's are lobbying Congress and attempting to enstate a sort of "tiered" internet platform in which sites paying the most would enjoy better benefits. Additionally, ISP's would have the power to block, or slow down their competitors' websites. Is net neutrality, defined as the open, flat, and easy access to the internet by all users, a positive aspect of the internet, or should ISP's be allowed to influence content?


basically, just google net neutrality, and you'll come up with a plethora of sources.


Side Score: 4


Side Score: 5
2 points

Net neutrality is a must for all of us to continue to experience all of the great things available on the Internet. If we don't support net neutrality, sites like this one might not exist. There will be less creativity reaching us. We must continue to fight for this...a great example of legislation gone awry and look at what the government is doing to the incandescent light bulb!!!! Soon you won't be able to buy them! What if they end up changing the net so much that you can't get to anything except what the pipe owners want you to get to? Sounds a little like how it may be in China! Certainly not good!

Side: For
ThePyg(6761) Disputed
1 point

China strictly regulates the internet which is why there is censorship and limited access.

If China stayed out of internet affairs, things would be far more open for the people.

People seem to fear corporations for doing things that government actually has the ability to do (and without financial consequence).

Side: Against
1 point

The idea that "poor giant corporations" can't compete because the internet is actually fair (somewhat) and so the internet should be made unfair like the rest of the world is a DeSade level twist of logic.

The fact is large corporations already have an advantage. They can hire better marketers, SEO experts, designers, etc.

They are just looking for even more advantage because god forbid a neighborhood mom and pop shop should through hard work be allowed to compete with them.

As for making the internet better. Complete BS.

I promise the first thing that would happen is any real information will be impossible to find before page 10 of a search and there will be an almost immediate collusion between internet providers and corporations to track usage, sell results, even divert searches to "partners." The while not an extra penny devoted to increased bandwidth, unless it's through a price increase to the customer, which is how it works right now so wtf?

It would be a fucking mess, basically.

Side: For
ThePyg(6761) Disputed
1 point

The FCC did not start regulating the internet until Obama came into the administration (at least, the net neutrality type regulation).

Was Facebook and Google charging all of us to use them? Were we in complete corporate chaos before the FCC got involved (in a sneaky, at first, attempt, by the way)?

You are making futuristic predictions as if the internet was created when Obama came into power. If you are wondering on what would happen once we stopped being afraid of the corporate boogeyman, look to before 2005 when the FCC had practically no involvement in the internet. Although, if you're more worried about ending "net neutrality" look to before 2009.

How terrible was it then? Is this what you're afraid of? Sites like Google, Youtube, Myspace, Facebook, Thepiratebay, and countless others?

Side: Against
1 point

Evenly splitting bandwidth and taking away incentive for competition is not the way to go if what you're looking for is a better internet.

Companies need to compete with each other and develop ways to make their product better. Net Neutrality will take much of that away.

Side: Against
Conro(767) Disputed
1 point

The internet is not only a source of gaining income/exchanging wealth. For example, bloggers would certainly be at a much higher disadvantage against established news organizations. The internet has developed its own form of competition that isn't market driven and instead is viewer driven. Additionally, it is a form of "double dipping" by the ISP's by charging for internet access then charging websites for additional privileges that would be passed onto the consumer.

Net neutrality has been in effect for pretty much the entire duration of public internet access. This means that the benefits of the internet we've always had is inherent within this system and the ISP's would be attempting to change a system to just fill their coffers.

Side: For
ThePyg(6761) Disputed
1 point

Viewers are the market. The more viewers, the more money most internet sites will make because other companies will want to pay them to put up their ads.

As well, this concern over ISPs taking advantage is unfounded. i ask you, how many websites are charging people to view them when they usually wouldn't? If the companies truly felt it was profitable, they would have done it by now. But the thing about the internet is that it being unregulated is what makes free content so easy to get. People use the internet in hopes of not having to pay for most content. If websites attempted to charge users just to go on their sites, that would greatly dent their profits.

Free access is what makes them money, for that means far more hits. If Facebook all of a sudden charged its users, the users would move on to a website that doesn't charge.

Side: Against