EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

That the provision of Internet services should be a public utility

0 points
4 points
lannan13lannan13 (CON)

Contention 1: Unregulated Market is better than a Regulated market for the internet.

In the current system, the internet has always been free and open. We can see that Entrapenuers have been free to do as they please and they have set reasonable prises and entry fees for the consumer. We can see that without a great amount of high internet regulation by the federal government that the internet has thrived in the current situation. Without this regulation that this resolution is purposing we can see that the internet has thrived “"due in large part to private investment and market-driven innovation, broadband in America has improved considerably in the last decade. More Americans are online at faster speeds than ever before." [1] So we can see that the net neutrallity will kill inovation and it does this by ending and placing a cap on speeding up the internet. [2] This is done by getting rid of the right for providers like Comcast and such to speed up the connection to websites of their cliants and this is something that destroys our very foundation of the Free Market as it does not permit for companies to use this to increase speed as this increasement of speed leads to innovation as the clients clamour for faster and faster internet connection and it’s for this reason alone that the US has the fastest internet in the world, but Net Neutrality is threatening to change all of that. Under Net Neutrality the government will limit how much broadband and brandwith the companies get and this hurts the market, because now the market cannot charge for scarce resources. As economist Milton Friedman argues in his book Capitalism and Freedom, we can see that if we abolish these price controls we permit the market to show us the scarce resources and these resources cost more, but with these controls it limits the company’s fixture to this issue and once again harming the economy.

Let’s look at DSL for example. We can see here that when this wasn’t regualted that it spiked in growth and developement, but when regulations occured it stagnated dragmatically, BUT when they were removed it took off. [3] FiberBroadband Community, an internet provided in the Great Lakes region reported that under net neutrality that they would be forced to move ALL of their customers to a more expensive plan and this would hurt the business as it would cost them more, but the price for the internet would have to stay the same. Plus they are forced to keep their company running on the same expensive plan which destroys innovation as they no longer are needed to innovate to get the edge in the market since everyone has to provide the same connection plans. [6]

Contention 2: Status Quo Antitrust laws solve issue.

The main concern now with Net Neutrality issue is that the Internet providers are monopolizing the industry and colluding against the public, but this is simply not so. For 100’s of years the Sherman Anti-Trust Law has been breaking up monopolies all across the country sticking to the issue that Milton Friedman gave in “Capitalism and Freedom” that generally monopolizes are bad, but that of a Public monopoly is worse. What this debate of net neutrality practically is misconcieved as is that the internet providers have that of a bottleneck like connection of the internet and can switch off connection and access to certain sites. Now here’s the kicker, under the current laws under Section 2 of the Sherman Bill we can see that such a practice would be illegal. [4]

So we can clearly see that we do not need more regulation. The FCC commissioner Robert McDowell backed this up by stating 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.” [5]


  1. (FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan 19 (Mar. 16, 2010) [http://www.broadband.gov/download-plan/])

  2. (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/04/25/new-fcc-ruling-kills-net-neutrality-and-broadband-innovation)

  3. Thomas Hazlett and Joshua Wright, The Law and Economics of Net Neutrality (2012)

  4. (http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=51)

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

  6. (file:///C:/Users/dreeves/Downloads/Primer%202014.pdf)

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-09-14 14:15:08
| Speak Round
Am93Am93 (PRO)
first and fore most i would like to offer my apologies for the delay, and please note that i do take this debate seriously,it was just due to some circumstances that the round was forfeited.

i would like to begin by quoting you  and thanks for the point"In the current system, the internet has always been free and open. We can see that Entraprenueres have been free to do as they please and they have set reasonable prices and entry fees for the consumer. We can see that without a great amount of high internet regulation by the federal government that the internet has thrived in the current situation"

for clear understanding let me continue this discussion/debate with the explain of key factors or words in the motion That the PROVISION of INTERNET services should be a PUBLIC UTILITY 

PROVISION- Is the action of providing or supplying something for use.
INTERNET-a global computer network providing a variety of information and communication facilities, consisting of interconnected networks using standardized communication protocols.
PUBLIC- the people as a whole or ordinary people in general; the community
UTILITY- the state of being useful, profitable, or beneficial.

the motion simply means internet should be made available for all to use in like terms as water, electricity e.t.c which are a public utility....


Return To Top | Posted:
2016-09-16 14:49:40
| Speak Round
lannan13lannan13 (CON)
My opponent is using unjust semantics in his argument to counter mine. I shall define it as it is below. We can simply see that the Public Utility does not mean that it should be available to the public, but that the utility should be owned by the government [1]. This is what we are debating here. With that I extend all arguments in this debate.

1. http://tinyurl.com/hgz6495

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-09-17 03:56:43
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
When you are in the debate, it will give you the option to draft your post(which you seemed to have figured out) and it will automatically save your draft. It saves the draft in the debate, so next time you come on, it is still there(in the same condition as it was saved).
At the bottom of your draft, it gives you the option to post it. After clicking it, you will be able to review your draft and click it again, then it will be posted.
Posted 2016-09-20 04:01:18
guys i am having problems with this site its my turn to post an arguement but i cant see the post an arguement button......and it keeps on saying saving your drafts but where exactly i need them.help please
Posted 2016-09-19 10:33:23
Posted 2016-09-17 19:13:16
You said this: "We can simply see that the Public Utility does not mean that it should be available to the public, but that the utility should be owned by the government"
That is incorrect, a public utility is an organization that maintains infrastructure for a public service, it need not be state owned.
"Public utilities can be privately owned or publicly owned."
" Publicly owned utilities are non-profit. Private utilities, also called investor-owned utilities, are owned by investors, and operate for profit, often referred to as a rate of return."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility

Just wanted to point something out.
Posted 2016-09-17 19:12:04
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2016-09-17 19:03:03
Bi0HazardJudge: Bi0Hazard    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: lannan13
I decided this win based on PRO failing to provide an argument.
PRO just pointed out that public utilities are something provided for the public to use and left it at that.
CON disputed this by saying that public utilities are exclusively of the state(public sector).

PRO, there are two things you should remember:
1. Try not to forfeit rounds in a debate.
2. Make a case with arguments.
1 user rated this judgement as constructive
2 comments on this judgement
i did not forfiet on purpose, it happened that here in my country the network was down for a period of 5 days, so my time to post elapsed thats why it forfieted me...and again the post comment was not my intention it happend by mistake my arguement go erased don't how.
Posted 2016-09-19 10:20:36
Either way, it will lower your chances in the debate. So, just try not to.
If you save your drafts, they should still be there.
Posted 2017-03-14 19:49:23
2016-10-08 14:28:26
dsjpk5Judge: dsjpk5
Win awarded to: lannan13
2016-10-08 21:36:21
ButterCatxJudge: ButterCatx    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: lannan13
2016-10-13 22:22:31
FamousdebaterJudge: Famousdebater
Win awarded to: lannan13

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 2 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • Reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Permissive Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 5 days
  • Time to vote: 1 month
  • Time to prepare: None
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29