The Instigator
mineo72debates
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Raumulus
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Net Neutrality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2017 Category: Technology
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 759 times Debate No: 105890
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

mineo72debates

Pro

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
Raumulus

Con

CONTRA MINEO,

Thanks for the topic, my first argument is very brief.

The service of providing internet access is a private service just like any other, and as such, the service provider has the right to determine exactly what sort of product he wishes to provide. The internet service company provides two services: one to the consumer, the one viewing websites, and one to the producer, the owner of a given website. Any private service provider reserves the right to deny service to whomever he should wish, for any reason. Therefore, an internet service provider may deny service to any website.
Debate Round No. 1
mineo72debates

Pro

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?
Raumulus

Con

It's the free market.

If Comcast is trying to push their alternative product to Netflix: Watchcast, and they decide to not provide Netflix in order to do this, they present the consumer with a choice; either the consumer values the price that Comcast is asking, or they value the product that Comcast is neglecting to provide.

If one producer refuses to provide a certain product to consumers, that only provides incentive for rival companies to provide said product to the consumers.

With regards to those consumers with access only to one internet service provider: an axiom of economics is that in any economy, if the demand for a certain product is high enough, that product will be supplied, if not restricted in any way by union or federal laws. If those Americans value Netflix highly enough, they will be willing to pay enough to provide incentive for a rival internet service provider to move in.

If through some extraneous circumstances, there is no way for some families to have Netflix, that is not an injustice. Man has no natural right to entertainment; there is no injustice simply because you can't watch season two of Stranger Things. There is an injustice, however, in stripping the producer of his right to determine what products he produces, and to whom he provides them.
Debate Round No. 2
mineo72debates

Pro

First, I would like to say, how are ISPs in a free market when 64% of Americans only have 1 ISP in their area? The Big ISPs work together to keep competition low and profits high. Without Net Neutrality the Internet wont be a free market as the big ISPs can control everything. How is that free?
Raumulus

Con

I'd posit that perhaps such a majority of Americans are only serviced by one internet provider simply because there is no reason for another company to move in. If that company should begin to deny access to certain websites, and there is a substantial demand for said websites, I think this would cause more diversity in providers.

A crucial part of my argument, however, I think has gone unaddressed by you. Even given that there is a true monopoly, and there are people who are unable to get access to some number of websites, I do not see that as a crime. If that company were not there, those people would be without internet access anyhow. Access to any--let alone every--website on the internet is a service, it is not a right; therefore to be denied it is not in anyway a crime. I think you overlooked this in your response.

I'd also like to suggest some possible advantages to not enforcing Net Neutrality. If companies are allowed to select which websites they provide access to, they can craft internet packages more tailored to specific consumers. For example, they can produce a childrens' package, with access to only kid-friendly websites, or a cheaper business package, with only access to an employee's company websites. Liberals can sell packages with only liberal websites, conservatives packages with only conservative websites.

I think that a producer has the right to determine exactly what sort of product he produces, and to what sort of customer he provides it to.
Debate Round No. 3
mineo72debates

Pro

I see your point, but I do not believe that the internet should be controlled by a few company's. Second, ISPs are not producers they are providers, greedy ones at that. Your packages idea is a bad one in my opinion, because of the fact that internet would be more expensive than it already is. The internet should always be a place where ideas shall live or die based on their popularity, not by what a company thinks.

BTW thanks for being a respectful person to debate with
December 17th 2017 4:02 PM
Raumulus

Con

The Net Neutrality Act has nothing to do with how many companies the internet access is provided by. It does only accidentally, in that by allowing companies some variance in what websites they provide access to, you allow for some diversity in product, and therefore more tailoring and competition.

The ISPs are producers, in that their product is a service. Just as the milkman produces a milk carton that is on your doorstep, ISPs produce websites that are accessible by you.

It's interesting that you think specific internet packages would cause internet on the whole to become more expensive, I am imagining limited packages being provided for prices lower than the full internet is currently being provided for.

Thanks for a fun debate, let's use Round five for summaries.
Debate Round No. 4
mineo72debates

Pro

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
Raumulus

Con

The government should not require ISPs to provide access to all websites equally, because internet access is a service provided to websites and consumers, and servicer providers have the right to decide what service they provide exactly, and to whom they provide it. The government should not dictate how we use the internet.

Very fun, short, debate. Glad to make your first one a good one.

P. S. R. V. V. V.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TheVanadium 6 months ago
TheVanadium
I'll post my argument here since I can't officially be a part of this debate.

Let's start with this simple analogy.
Can an electricity company dim your lightbulbs just to make your television screen, which they own, brighter? Of course not.

We can apply this logic to data. Can an ISP make Google slow down just to make their own website faster? Of course not.
No votes have been placed for this debate.