Debate Info

Yes No
Debate Score:24
Total Votes:24
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Yes (8)
 No (10)

Debate Creator

dem6(77) pic

Net Neutrality - Should FCC regulate internet?


Side Score: 9


Side Score: 15
2 points

The FCC should regulate Internet Service Providers. There are poorer countries than the U.S. with much faster in internet service (50 vs. 150 mbs). Google fiber is way faster than your local ISP. ISP's are are practically a monopoly in their area of operation. Some cities have found that it is better to put in their own fiber rather than wait for their local ISP to do it. The ISP's brought this on themselves. The regulation will keep new, small, ISP's from entering the market place. ISP's will not suffer as much as you might think.

Side: Yes
dem6(77) Disputed
1 point

Exaclty. ISPs won't suffer as much. The common users of the internet, on the other hand, will be the ones that suffer.

Side: No
1 point

And how exactly do you think that common users of the internet will suffer?

Side: Yes
Astac(242) Disputed
1 point

It is the regulations and the FCC that gave us what we have today. There are not many countries with faster internet service than here in the USA. The net neutrality BS from the FCC has nothing to do with internet to the homes, it is all about censorship. If we could get the FCC out of the way of the ISP, and the Local Lec's speed would increase as the FCC would not longer be hampering the deployment of services

Side: No
1 point

There are not many countries with faster internet service than here in the USA.

There are actually 11.

The net neutrality BS from the FCC has nothing to do with internet to the homes, it is all about censorship.

That does not make sense. Requiring internet providers to provide the same connection quality to all websites does the opposite of censorship.

If we could get the FCC out of the way of the ISP, and the Local Lec's speed would increase as the FCC would not longer be hampering the deployment of services

If we got the FCC out and net neutrality was gone, then ISP's would throttle speeds for websites that refused to pay extra.

Side: Yes
1 point

I see a lot of misunderstanding about what Net Neutrality is. It is NOT giving the FCC the power to censor online content. Rather it is giving the FCC the power to prohibit ISPs from censoring online content by degrading the speed of any service they dislike (Verizon and Netflix for example).

Net Neutrality is simply about keeping the Internet the way it is supposed to be by making certain the ISPs don't gain the power to be gatekeepers by degrading or even blocking content altogether.

If you're happy using an Internet that can be slowed or even blocked at will by your ISP, go ahead and oppose Net Neutrality.

Side: Yes

First, where does this amount of regulatory power come from without the direction of Congress?

Second, open and free interest is dead, this brings a host of new implications in taxes and fees.


Side: No
1 point

First off, the internet was created as a military tool and then made a public utility by the government.

Second, this MAINTAINS open and free interesting. What it prevents is Pay to Play internet service, where small businesses would have to pay high fees in order for internet providers to allow customers to have anywhere near decent speeds on their sites.

This preserves freedom of information on the internet.

Side: Yes
Jace(5163) Disputed
3 points

A lot of things were initially created by the military or other government operated/funded entity (source, source, etc.); that does not necessarily mean the government does or should have sole discretionary control of the product. This is particularly true where the present product has made significant departure from its original form, as is certainly the case with the internet.

Internet regulation is in no way necessary to providing affordable, efficient internet service. Regulation of providers may be, but that is a matter of restricting businesses rather than the product itself.

Side: No
2 points

Government didn't create the internet, that is preposterous. The government invented Arpanet even though government scientists still heavily relied on inventions by private companies. When email and instant messaging was finally running, it had very little use to consumers because it linked very few computers. Internet flourished when it was privatized. The private sector would have invented and flourished much sooner if not for the government.

"According to Andrew Morriss of The Freeman, two reasons: First, government crowded out the private sector by hiring many talented computer scientists. Second, laws required the FCC to authorize new networks, and "Regulatory barriers to entry, not a lack of entrepreneurial activity, slowed the efforts to build private networks." Stossel

Side: No
dem6(77) Clarified
1 point

But without an open internet, big corporations would have unreasonable control over how we access websites and services. Doesn't this destroy the purpose of the internet in the first place? I mean the INTERNET is the single greatest technology of our time because it is open and free. If it stops being that, then what's the point?

Side: Yes
2 points

I think it is premature to assume that reclassifying a presently private commodity into a public utility will necessarily generate more benefit than harm, particularly where such arguments are advanced on the basis of earlier reclassification successes (e.g. electric, water, etc.).

I distrust corporations, given their obvious self-interests and consolidated power and influence relative to individual parties. But by the same token, I also distrust the government on this issue. The internet is not like current public utilities; whereas the latter are primarily well-being or survival resources, the internet is primarily an information resources. The government has a very strong and quite apparent self-interest in consolidating its influence and oversight upon the internet, because doing so enables it to continue its privacy breaches with less opposition and even to influence what information is more readily accessible to its populace. With the internet as a public utility, there really is no potential oppositional force to government abuse of authority that strikes me as remotely reliable.

Not only does the nature of the internet render it more prone to abuse by the government than its public utility counterparts, it also renders the populace less prone to opposition itself. People will notice if water quality is poor, if the electricity keeps going out, etc. While people would notice if the internet dropped out, they are considerably less likely to notice if they are being spied upon in secret of lacking access to information they do not know exists.

I do not know what the solution to this problem is (and it is a problem), but I am not convinced that treating the internet like a public commodity is necessarily the solution. Though, by all means, feel free to persuade me on the matter.

Side: No

The FCC should not regulate the Internet. The Internet is fine as it is.

Side: No