Case Idea? Require broadband…
Not sure if this would be topical or not but it sounds really interesting – require any new construction to install broadband telecommunications cables.
My initial thought is that this is a perfect example of reforming the infrastructure. Currently, highways are not required to have broadband – this reform will require them which will greatly boost internet speed and access.
This seems like a perfect case to “break” in outrounds to try to sneak past an opponent =)
Any thoughts?
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
it’s not good when seven words are the end of your affirmative.
“transportation infrastructure is a term of art.”
Interesting but not topical. It fits the term infrastructure but it’s an epic fail in terms of meeting the definition of transportation. When you look to the USFG, the jurisdiction of broadband internet falls under the FCC and not the DOT.
Additionally, this would actually work against what the DOT is trying to do right now, which is work against distracted driving. People are texting and accessing the internet while driving, which causes accidents and perhaps death.
The DOT has an entire campaign built around against distracted driving. Endorsing a case like this only works against the DOT’s current mission and as the Neg you could have a field day. I know I would.
I would think there is an easy defense to that line of topicality attack. The “reform” (change/upgrade) of the “transportation infrastructure” (highways) is to require that all highways have broadband cables underneath. I don’t see why this wouldn’t be topical but painting the freeways white would be – or creating all HOV lanes. The plan would take an existing element of transportation infrastructure (highways) and reform them to require highways + broadband.
The plan does nothing regarding the laws or regulations of broadband internet (FCC) but simply requires that the cables be laid underneath. The plan would not also be able to mandate net neutrality or anything – just that cables are installed.
In the article referenced it says: “by requiring the installation of broadband conduit as part of any federally-funded transportation project.” So it’s a transportation project not a FCC project. It’s infrastructure (the road) and it’s reform. I think with some good front lines this case would not be that hard to win on topicality.
I also don’t think the distracted driving disad would be terribly unique to this plan. More cables would in no way increase the number of people texting or accessing the internet while surfing the web. Instead, it would just mean better internet for everyone by creating more bandwidth. If someone is going to text now they’d text pre or post plan too.
Yup, I will continue to text in california while I drive down our shitty roads because I want to become a statistic for someone’s aff… but seriously, I think that the extension of broadband into places where it isn’t now because of a lack of profitability for isp’s is a nice advantage.
Danny has a point, the resolution is more then two words; reforms can come in many ways. There is nothing in the res that says what kind of transportation infrastructure has to be reformed , why can’t it be information transportation infrastructure (which I am sure Will would agree with because the res doesn’t limit to domestic T/I the argument for the Bagram prison case is the same idea). However, I am not sure if we want to un-limit the resolution this much. I am still conflicted on this issue.
Personally, not my kind of aff, but I can see how some people would like it.
Not my kind of affirmative either.
I still stand by my earlier reference as in, this isn’t under the jurisdiction of the DOT. In an analogy as quoted by then Senator Obama, “Put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.” Just like lets install internet cables under freeways, that will still be regulated by the FCC. So in the end, I don’t see how that’s going to be net beneficial/ resolutional to the other portions of the resolutional terms of “transportation infrastructure.” Sure, you can put all your answers to T/I upon the terminology of reform but it still comes down to what the judge thinks.
I guess what irks me is the entire interpretation of case compared to the res. On my way to work today, I just saw some linemen use wiring tape to fix some damaged wiring on a telephone pole. Since the telephone pole is on the road would that now be considered transportation infrastructure? That scares me because the maintenance / upkeep of those telephone poles are maintained by Linemen, which aren’t workers of the DOT.
Either way, I don’t particularly care for this case and I’m more than happy to build more neg evidence to shut it down.
This is transportation infrastructure in two ways
1. The broadband cables themselves are infrastructure for transporting information.
2. The project is built into larger transportation infrastructure in the form of highways.
Serriously, how is this case not the most topical thing out there?
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Actually, this case was run at APU.
People ran Topicality, and, for the most part, the judges were not buying the answers. (Even though, in my opinion, it is one of the most intuitively topical cases this year.)