The Instigator
applesnack
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Puck
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2010 Category: Technology
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,564 times Debate No: 13903
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

applesnack

Pro

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.
Puck

Con

"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...
Debate Round No. 1
applesnack

Pro

This debate is about what the Internet will become in the years to come; Whether it will remain an open platform for advancement, or a platform for the advancement of three or four large corporations and their partners.

Let's look at the Verizon example given, they spent 18 billion on fiber optics. This statistic is supposed to make the point that these companies spend money, and that were net neutrality put into practice, this investment would be somehow become terribly unprofitable. I want to point out two aspects of the source given though.

First, "they are expected to start turning profits on their new offerings in 2009." 3 years, only 3 years to turn a profit on an 18 billion dollar investment. We can see the wild profitability of controlling such a large portion of our nations communication infrastructure. Net neutrality does not make this a bad investment, it doesn't make expanding a network's reach, or increasing it's capacity something that loses money, but it does ensure that while a company is expanding they don't screw the customers that are already connected. Faster connections can be bought, and people will want them. Making your network faster, advancing your network, will be met enthusiastically by consumers, and is not undermined by net neutrality.

Second, "Because many companies offer package-deals to customers which include telephone, internet and cable TV service,..." This bundling, this use of the same infrastructure for a variety of data types, illustrates the end-to-end principle that the Internet was built on. The Internet relies on intelligent terminals, and a dumb network. By having a network that can facilitate all types of data we allow for a network like the internet. The "smart network" is not a positive, once the network starts telling the data what to do, we limit what the data can do. Look to the telephone network as an example. It was built to facilitate one type of data transfer at one rate that was the main of transmitting voice. Once a new way to transmit voice was found though, this network, that would make"intelligent" assumptions about what that data needed to do, prevented this better form of communication. Once we dethrone data as king of the network, we permanently impair the Internet's ability to adapt and improve.

http://www.wordiq.com...

Yes, ISPs are profit motivated. Does this mean that they will seek the best consumer experience, or that they will seek the consumer experience that best benefits themselves?
The negation says that with net neutrality, consumers would be unable tailer their internet for their use. This isn't true, and again I turn to the end-to-end principle. If you've ever looked at your router settings, you'll find the ability to prioritize your traffic, to put Skype over firefox, to put one router port or device over the rest. This is the intelligent terminal of the end-to-end network. And you may say or think that this takes a high degree of technical know-how, but it doesn't, ISPs offer to guide you through this set-up already.

--------

1) Net neutrality will encourage and protect innovation and competition.

There is a difference between unregulated, and decentralized. Regulation preventing the Internet from being centrally controlled is in no detrimental to the end of a decentralized network. My opponent seems to leave out the fact that for those servers to be accessed, people need to go through ISPs. The ability of ISPs to tailer shape consumer traffic for the benefit of their bank accounts is directly related to the entrepreneurial nature of the internet.
Which do you think is more profitable - allowing competing services primarily operating out of a garage , or teaming multi billion dollar companies to crush their competition? Microsoft, at $224.75 billion, or Linux. Google, $163.2 billion, or askjeeves. ISPs are profit motivated. Beyond this, look at who owns the Internet. Should we allow the Internet to be controlled by companies, the 5 or so network service providers that control the Backbone of the Internet, would control access to the entire network. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

2) IP Standards
I point again to the end-to-end network design, the way ISPs handle data transfer is the foundation of these protocols. The TCP protocol is responsible for error checking, the application controls the preference of accuracy over speed or vise versa, and that protocol depends on a neutral network. Once the network starts making assumptions about how to treat data, we inhibit future improvements and adaptations.
http://www.wordiq.com... (specifically the IDIOT SAVANT BEHAVIORS FOR DIFFERENT DATA TYPES section)

3) Free exchange of information, and rights of the consumer

"They have no reason to censor information."
ISPs are profit motivated, as you said yourself. Teaming up with multi-billion dollar companies is profitable, and ISPs thus have every reason to censor and favor certain information, competitors, and sites.

"The FCC under net neutrality however can."
This is completely false and baseless claim.

"As for ISPs that monitor traffic, that is irrelevant to net neutrality"
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.

Without net neutrality, we leave the Internet open to attack. We need net neutrality to prevent the Internet from becoming and Invasive and biased service provided and controlled by large corporations. We need net neutrality to protect the open and innovative nature of the Internet.
Puck

Con

"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.
Debate Round No. 2
applesnack

Pro

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!
Puck

Con

"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.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by applesnack 6 years ago
applesnack
That was quite scary, it looked like it froze when I hit submit at 15 seconds left, I wish I had been able to get to it sooner to get a more thorough argument out there.
Posted by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
Probably won't submit argument till Friday.
Posted by applesnack 6 years ago
applesnack
Alright there we go

Gotta love procrastination for keeping me up late enough to change that.
Posted by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
6,000 characters? There's another higher one to choose!
Posted by applesnack 6 years ago
applesnack
Fun fact, turns out clicking submit helps when you want to submit a change.
Posted by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
You can edit the debate before I accept it, to make it 3 rounds. Should be a link in the top right of the page somewhere if you are logged in and viewing the debate.
Posted by applesnack 6 years ago
applesnack
three rounds it is.
Posted by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
lol
Posted by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Awwww, sh*t, pro. You've provoked the beast. :P
Posted by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
Three rounds, thanks. :)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
applesnackPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
applesnackPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by belle 6 years ago
belle
applesnackPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04