The Instigator
Con (against)
28 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Net neutrality laws.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 3/8/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 630 times Debate No: 71328
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)




This should be impossible to accept. Please comment if you're interested.

Voting is only open to members with at least 2500 Elo.


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.
Debate Round No. 1


The implication behind making the debate impossible to accept, asking you to comment if you're interested, was to exercise discrimination in choice of opponent. I think taking the debate without commenting is bad conduct and constitutes a forfeit (at least based on the standards on this site).

That said, the debate isn't about net neutrality as principle. Net neutrality "is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication."

The debate is about net neutrality laws. The question is whether we should require net neutrality, or whether we should regulate anticompetitive business practices through other means (e.g. antitrust laws). The problem with requiring net neutrality -- with a net neutrality law -- is that it doesn't distinguish between procompetitive and anticompetitive practices.

Entrepreneurs often experiment with new and different business models -- e.g. prioritizing network traffic -- to lower prices and improve customer experience. Lariat Wireless, for example, a small internet service provider ("ISP") in Wyoming, forbids its customers from operating servers, to reduce network congestion and improve the overall experience for their users. Brett Glass, the CEO, explains: "most Internet users would not know what a server was if it bit them, and they have no problem uploading content to a Web site such as YouTube for distribution. This means customers that do need to operate a server could obtain that capability by paying a bit more to cover the additional cost." Under a net neutrality law, however, Lariat Wireless would be forced to shift "everyone to the more expensive plan. We will therefore be less competitive, offer less value to consumers and especially less value to economically disadvantaged ones." [1]

Moreover, current antitrust laws are enough to protect consumers from anticompetitive practices. The net neutrality debate turns on the idea that there are bottlenecks on the Internet which allow network owners to exercise market power. For example, if a local telephone company has a monopoly in broadband access and it blocks broadband subscribers from using an Internet phone service offered by a rival company, that could harm both competition and consumers. But that's a classic antitrust issue. And under current antitrust laws, Section 2 of the Sherman Act, that's illegal if it harms consumers and competition.

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell notes that "in the almost nine years since [net neutrality] fears were first sewn, net regulation lobbyists can point to fewer than a handful of cases of alleged misconduct, out of an infinite number of Internet communications. All those cases were resolved in favor of consumers under current law." [2] There is simply no reason to prefer displacing the antitrust laws -- flexible, nuanced, fact-based enforcement -- with a rigid net neutrality regime.


[2] In re Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Indus. Practices, 25 FCC Rcd. 17,905 (2010)


Ok i'll forfeit I don't care. Everytime I see a debate where someone says it's impossible to accept and I can I always do cause it's funny to me.
Debate Round No. 2


I understand but it's just annoying for me, since I was trying to look for a serious debate.


I'll give you a real debate. invite me to a new one and then I'll get serious
Debate Round No. 3


Challenge me to the debate if you still want to do one.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by FourTrouble 3 years ago
I fvkced up the settings. Dam. This idiot took the debate.
Posted by lannan13 3 years ago
This is possible for me to accept.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was not even interested in the debate, he only accepted to troll. After trolling he still could have given a debate, but dropped out instead.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeits.
Vote Placed by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Pro.