[DEFEATED] Repeal "Internet Net Neutrality Act"

[United Federation of Canada]

Ok, here we go:

Affirming that competition is generally preferable to regulation,

Not necessarily. Government regulation is needed in order to prevent gouging, which unregulated businesses do fairly liberally,

Further affirming the legitimate practice of varying the quality of consumer goods and services with the price paid, which fosters competition, maximizes consumer choice, and improves the overall quality of goods and services,

So the richer you are the better the service you should be entitled to?

Recalling in particular that the Internet's predecessor, the postal service, has traditionally offered tiered services, including charging more for faster mail delivery,

Which was government owned, and not for profit.

Noting that GAR #89, "Internet Net Neutrality Act", prohibits Internet Service Providers from offering any tiered services due to the resolution’s prohibition of "network discrimination",

I believe that describes NEUTRALITY pretty well.

Understanding that Internet Service Providers must remain profitable and competitive in order to make the substantial investments involved in building, maintaining and upgrading network infrastructure,

Nothing in the act prevents them from remaining profitable in the first place, and government grants should be implemented to improve infrastucture, at the compromise of reduced costs to the general population.

Remarking that the limited bandwidth available in several nations to handle the rapidly increasing onslaught of Internet traffic, particularly streaming video and other content with low-latency requirements, makes additional investment in network infrastructure particularly crucial,

Once again government grants could assist with that. Why should the consumer have to pay for the investment for the company to make more money from them?

Concerned that the restrictions imposed by GAR #89 reduce consumer choice and hinder competition and innovation by blocking the adoption, by Internet Service Providers, of novel business models based on tiered service, such as exempting certain Internet content, applications or services from bandwidth caps or granting improved quality of service to certain Internet content, applications or services,

Neutrality at it's finest.

Distressed that the restrictions imposed by GAR #89 actually prohibit standard usage-based billing practices, such as charging more for increased speeds or additional bandwidth, which are largely necessary for Internet Service Providers to recoup the cost of existing investments and justify further investments in network infrastructure,

Once again, why shoud a person that has more wealth be entitled to a better quality of service, while the regular schmoes have to suffer?

Concluding that GAR #89 significantly harms Internet Service Providers to the point where the overall quality of Internet access diminishes substantially,

Internet in our nations runs perfectly fine and it is wholly government owned and non-profit.

Emphasizing that nations which nevertheless reject the tiered service business model remain free to introduce national network neutrality legislation without forcing other nations to do the same through GAR #89,

Where is the problem here?

Hoping that the World Assembly will focus its attention on more appropriate Internet-related pursuits, such as increasing the availability of reasonable quality broadband Internet access in all member nations,

They have with this act, and done it quite well.

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR#89, "Internet Net Neutrality Act".

AGAINST!! Just because this isn't one of your badly categorized Free Trade proposals you must have it repealed?

[Gullud]

Repealing GAR #89 is a very bad idea. The first problem that I am seeing is that the proposal looking to give corporations free ruin on the cost of the internet. We in Gullud have found that if you do that, a system of legalized monopolies are created by the arrangements that ISP make with each other. (ie: company a has this region and company b has that one.) This creates a system where prices are not competitive because there is not competition in that area.

This also sets up no incentive to innovate. With a regulated, net neutral internet, ISP have to work on new ideas for making their service faster and that is how they compete with each other. If an ISP comes out with a faster service than their competitors, people will shift over to the faster service. A tiered system will limit this by the fact that only the wealthy will have the ability to afford faster internet speeds; giving the companies no incentive to work on improvement. Additionally, tiered service can create a situation where an ISP may put a bandwidth cap on costumers. This would turn the internet into a commodity. While I understand that this is the intent of the proposal, this is not going to go over well.

I feel that this is a completely bad idea and I hope that your plans are to drop this. As my nation is the regional Ambassador to the WA from the the Democratic Socialist Alliance, if this proposal is submitted, I will have the regional delegate not vote for it for quorum; and if it does hit the floor, I will get all 10 of my region's WA members to vote against.

Sincerely,

Ema Planta
Ambassador to the WA for Most Serene Nation of Gullud
and Regional Ambassador for Democratic Socialist Alliance (assigned to the WA)

[Auralia]

Ok, here we go:

Affirming that competition is generally preferable to regulation,

Not necessarily. Government regulation is needed in order to prevent gouging, which unregulated businesses do fairly liberally,

Further affirming the legitimate practice of varying the quality of consumer goods and services with the price paid, which fosters competition, maximizes consumer choice, and improves the overall quality of goods and services,

So the richer you are the better the service you should be entitled to?

Recalling in particular that the Internet's predecessor, the postal service, has traditionally offered tiered services, including charging more for faster mail delivery,

Which was government owned, and not for profit.

Noting that GAR #89, "Internet Net Neutrality Act", prohibits Internet Service Providers from offering any tiered services due to the resolution’s prohibition of "network discrimination",

I believe that describes NEUTRALITY pretty well.

Understanding that Internet Service Providers must remain profitable and competitive in order to make the substantial investments involved in building, maintaining and upgrading network infrastructure,

Nothing in the act prevents them from remaining profitable in the first place, and government grants should be implemented to improve infrastucture, at the compromise of reduced costs to the general population.

Remarking that the limited bandwidth available in several nations to handle the rapidly increasing onslaught of Internet traffic, particularly streaming video and other content with low-latency requirements, makes additional investment in network infrastructure particularly crucial,

Once again government grants could assist with that. Why should the consumer have to pay for the investment for the company to make more money from them?

Concerned that the restrictions imposed by GAR #89 reduce consumer choice and hinder competition and innovation by blocking the adoption, by Internet Service Providers, of novel business models based on tiered service, such as exempting certain Internet content, applications or services from bandwidth caps or granting improved quality of service to certain Internet content, applications or services,

Neutrality at it's finest.

Distressed that the restrictions imposed by GAR #89 actually prohibit standard usage-based billing practices, such as charging more for increased speeds or additional bandwidth, which are largely necessary for Internet Service Providers to recoup the cost of existing investments and justify further investments in network infrastructure,

Once again, why shoud a person that has more wealth be entitled to a better quality of service, while the regular schmoes have to suffer?

Concluding that GAR #89 significantly harms Internet Service Providers to the point where the overall quality of Internet access diminishes substantially,

Internet in our nations runs perfectly fine and it is wholly government owned and non-profit.

Emphasizing that nations which nevertheless reject the tiered service business model remain free to introduce national network neutrality legislation without forcing other nations to do the same through GAR #89,

Where is the problem here?

Hoping that the World Assembly will focus its attention on more appropriate Internet-related pursuits, such as increasing the availability of reasonable quality broadband Internet access in all member nations,

They have with this act, and done it quite well.

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR#89, "Internet Net Neutrality Act".

AGAINST!! Just because this isn't one of your badly categorized Free Trade proposals you must have it repealed?

Not every nation has adopted socialism, or wants to subsidize or nationalize Internet Service Providers. Yes, it is perfectly reasonable that someone who pays more gets improved access to the Internet; welcome to the free market.

Repealing GAR #89 is a very bad idea. The first problem that I am seeing is that the proposal looking to give corporations free ruin on the cost of the internet. We in Gullud have found that if you do that, a system of legalized monopolies are created by the arrangements that ISP make with each other. (ie: company a has this region and company b has that one.) This creates a system where prices are not competitive because there is not competition in that area.

Net neutrality is not necessary to prevent collusion, which is already illegal in most nations under anti-trust law.

This also sets up no incentive to innovate. With a regulated, net neutral internet, ISP have to work on new ideas for making their service faster and that is how they compete with each other. If an ISP comes out with a faster service than their competitors, people will shift over to the faster service. A tiered system will limit this by the fact that only the wealthy will have the ability to afford faster internet speeds; giving the companies no incentive to work on improvement. Additionally, tiered service can create a situation where an ISP may put a bandwidth cap on costumers. This would turn the internet into a commodity. While I understand that this is the intent of the proposal, this is not going to go over well.

I fundamentally disagree. As we see with every other industry, a sufficiently competitive marketplace is sufficient to ensure that ISPs do not become complacent, charging more for the same speeds or bandwidth consumed. Net neutrality (at least as implemented by the WA) actually kills an ISP's ability to innovate, since it forces ISPs to offer unlimited Internet access for a flat fee. That simply isn't profitable, but the regulations give ISPs limited options for new pricing schemes, so ISPs will be forced to either raise prices substantially or to cease making infrastructure investments and move into new markets; neither of these options are appealing.

Ultimately, though, I think the NatSov argument is the strongest case against net neutrality. If it happens to work for you for whatever reason, great. Why is it necessary to force it on us? Why do you care so much about whether our citizens have access to a "neutral" Internet? ((OOC: This is especially important given the number of real-life countries where there are no net neutrality regulations and yet people have high quality Internet access.))

[Auralia]

I plan on submitting this soon.

[Ossitania]

We're curious. If the proposing delegation is so interested in open competition, why is he content to oppose net neutrality and allow ISPs to prevent fair competition by favouring particular websites and applications (through making it easier to access certain websites and applications than others) and thereby limiting the ability of the rivals of these sites and applications from fairly competing against them? Indeed, in your proposal text, you claim that not allowing such practices "reduce customer choice and hinder competition", yet surely allowing ISPs to artificially pump up certain online content and application is antithetical to competition?

[Auralia]

We're curious. If the proposing delegation is so interested in open competition, why is he content to oppose net neutrality and allow ISPs to prevent fair competition by favouring particular websites and applications (through making it easier to access certain websites and applications than others) and thereby limiting the ability of the rivals of these sites and applications from fairly competing against them? Indeed, in your proposal text, you claim that not allowing such practices "reduce customer choice and hinder competition", yet surely allowing ISPs to artificially pump up certain online content and application is antithetical to competition?

I would argue that competition between ISPs largely precludes any possibility of online services being "shut out" of the Internet. If one ISP decides to prioritize a particular application or service over another, consumers who dislike the new arrangement will simply switch to another ISP.

Real-life jurisdictions without net neutrality rules, such as Australia or New Zealand, do not suffer from a lack of competition among online services, even though ISPs such as Telstra do engage in limited network discrimination by zero-rating content from certain providers.

But frankly, I believe that the argument above comes secondary to the fact that net neutrality is not an international issue. With respect, I fail to see why competition in the Auralian online services or telecommunications industries is the concern of Ossitania or any other nation.

[Ossitania]

I would argue that competition between ISPs largely precludes any possibility of online services being "shut out" of the Internet. If one ISP decides to prioritize a particular application or service over another, consumers who dislike the new arrangement will simply switch to another ISP.

This assumes that all competing applications/services/websites will have at least one ISP that favours them. Some perfectly fine applications/services/websites may not get a fair chance to compete with their rivals due to the lack of an ISP to back them.

Real-life jurisdictions without net neutrality rules, such as Australia or New Zealand, do not suffer from a lack of competition among online services, even though ISPs such as Telstra do engage in limited network discrimination by zero-rating content from certain providers.

Baloney. There are plenty of problems with competition among online services in Australia. Telstra uses bandwidth throttling to favour its own Bigpond over competitors like YouTube; iiNet does the same with Freezone.

But frankly, I believe that the argument above comes secondary to the fact that net neutrality is not an international issue. With respect, I fail to see why competition in the Auralian online services or telecommunications industries is the concern of Ossitania or any other nation.

Ambassador, surely you jest. Are you seriously suggesting that the Internet is a domestic marketplace and that international, multinational and transnational companies are not currently competing with each other online to gain your citizens as customers? The Internet is the most international of all marketplaces and net neutrality is regulation that ensures fair competition in that marketplace. You ask why it is the concern of us or other nations? Because our industries are competing with yours in this great online marketplace and we want that competition to be fair. I would have assumed that would be obvious, I would have assumed that was part of your own ethos. Has the day truly come when the Auralian delegation, of all delegations, is trying to enable protectionism!?

[Auralia]

This assumes that all competing applications/services/websites will have at least one ISP that favours them. Some perfectly fine applications/services/websites may not get a fair chance to compete with their rivals due to the lack of an ISP to back them.

I think you're blowing things way out of proportion. The general popularity of the public Internet makes it extremely risky to substantially degrade access for any content, application or service. Minor favouritism is all that is reasonably possible, is all we've seen thus far in real-life, and does not create a sufficiently large barrier to entry to justify strict net neutrality regulation. It is better to let the market work things out on its own.

Baloney. There are plenty of problems with competition among online services in Australia. Telstra uses bandwidth throttling to favour its own Bigpond over competitors like YouTube; iiNet does the same with Freezone.

Again, I don't consider that a problem. Customers of Telstra have no genuine difficulty accessing YouTube, and Telstra will not restrict access to YouTube, because that would be suicide.

Ambassador, surely you jest. Are you seriously suggesting that the Internet is a domestic marketplace and that international, multinational and transnational companies are not currently competing with each other online to gain your citizens as customers? The Internet is the most international of all marketplaces and net neutrality is regulation that ensures fair competition in that marketplace. You ask why it is the concern of us or other nations? Because our industries are competing with yours in this great online marketplace and we want that competition to be fair. I would have assumed that would be obvious, I would have assumed that was part of your own ethos. Has the day truly come when the Auralian delegation, of all delegations, is trying to enable protectionism!?

It is a fair point that a great deal of international commerce takes place over the Internet. The fact remains that what you call "ensur[ing] fair competition" we call overregulation, and we remain opposed to it.

By the way, our unwillingness to restrict minor favouritism by private companies is not protectionism, or governmental restrictions on trade.

[Flibbleites]

But frankly, I believe that the argument above comes secondary to the fact that net neutrality is not an international issue. With respect, I fail to see why competition in the Auralian online services or telecommunications industries is the concern of Ossitania or any other nation.

You did not just say that. Tell me you did not just say that. The internet is international by its very nature. I'm a NatSov and even I'll admit that.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Auralia]

You did not just say that. Tell me you did not just say that. The internet is international by its very nature. I'm a NatSov and even I'll admit that.

I admit that the World Assembly has a legitimate interest in preserving the open nature of the Internet. I maintain that there are better ways of accomplishing that goal than net neutrality regulations.

[Linux and the X]

But frankly, I believe that the argument above comes secondary to the fact that net neutrality is not an international issue

That, Ambassador Russell, is because you do not believe that there are any international issues other than restricting abortion and preventing governments from regulating trade.

[Auralia]

But frankly, I believe that the argument above comes secondary to the fact that net neutrality is not an international issue

That, Ambassador Russell, is because you do not believe that there are any international issues other than restricting abortion and preventing governments from regulating trade.

That is not at all true.

[Linux and the X]

That, Ambassador Russell, is because you do not believe that there are any international issues other than restricting abortion and preventing governments from regulating trade.

That is not at all true.

Your evidence is that you're trying to eliminate a trade (alright, labour, but don't you lot consider labour a category of trade anyway?) regulation? Alright then.

[Vagabundas]

I would like to thanks Martin Russell and Dr Castro to this wonderfull debate that we are having. Vagabundas is in favour of a Repeal but we will need to see a replacement regarding internet.

Yours,

[Auralia]

That is not at all true.

Your evidence is that you're trying to eliminate a trade (alright, labour, but don't you lot consider labour a category of trade anyway?) regulation? Alright then.

Did you read the proposal?

[Linux and the X]

Your evidence is that you're trying to eliminate a trade (alright, labour, but don't you lot consider labour a category of trade anyway?) regulation? Alright then.

Did you read the proposal?

Yes.

[Auralia]

Submitted for test run (no campaigning).

[Welsh Cowboy]

If this comes to a vote, this delegation will be happy to cast its vote for; the first time this delegation will have done so in, well, months. This is an admirable goal, opening up the Internet to competition, allowing consumers to have more choice at a lower price. Good luck with the campaigning; we await a vote.

Sincerely,
Welsh Cowboy WA Delegation

[New Tarajan]

I have to agree with other ambassadors to not support this proposal.
The reason behind this decision is very simple: the GA#89 has its limits, but provide in our opinion a good-enough protection of the Internet from any kind of discrimination.
Your entire repeal proposal is based on a very strict interpretation of the text of the GA#89, which we considers unjustifiable: indeed, the fifth statement of the resolution clearly affirms:

"FURTHER DEFINES network discrimination as intentionally blocking, interfering with, discriminating against, impairing, or degrading the ability of any person to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, application, or service through the Internet or imposing a fee beyond the end user fees associated with providing the content, service, or application to the consumer.

So, the GA#89 create the condition for a profitable, but not predatory, price-policy for Internet Service Providers, contradicting what you affirm in the 7th and 8th statements of your proposal:

Concerned that the restrictions imposed by GAR #89 reduce consumer choice and hinder competition and innovation by blocking the adoption of novel business models based on tiered service, such as exempting certain Internet content, applications or services from bandwidth caps or granting improved quality of service to certain Internet content, applications or services,

Distressed that the restrictions imposed by GAR #89 actually prohibit standard usage-based billing practices that were commonplace prior to the passage of the resolution, such as charging more for increased speeds or additional bandwidth, which are largely necessary for Internet Service Providers to recoup the cost of existing investments and justify further investments in network infrastructure,

A de-regulamentation would only provide an excuse for ISP to increase prices, at the expense of the consumer.

[Auralia]

Your entire repeal proposal is based on a very strict interpretation of the text of the GA#89, which we considers unjustifiable: indeed, the fifth statement of the resolution clearly affirms:

"FURTHER DEFINES network discrimination as intentionally blocking, interfering with, discriminating against, impairing, or degrading the ability of any person to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, application, or service through the Internet or imposing a fee beyond the end user fees associated with providing the content, service, or application to the consumer.

The resolution states that "intentionally blocking [or] degrading the ability of any person to access...any lawful content...through the Internet" constitutes network discrimination. This would seem to ban any sort of tiered service, including rate-limiting and bandwidth caps. This interpretation is only confirmed by the preamble's condemnation of "discriminatory pricing schemes."

A de-regulamentation would only provide an excuse for ISP to increase prices, at the expense of the consumer.

Not in a sufficiently competitive environment.

[New Tarajan]

The resolution states that "intentionally blocking [or] degrading the ability of any person to access...any lawful content...through the Internet" constitutes network discrimination. This would seem to ban any sort of tiered service, including rate-limiting and bandwidth caps. This interpretation is only confirmed by the preamble's condemnation of "discriminatory pricing schemes."

But there is a diffence between a normal price and "discrinatory pricing schemes", I believe.

Not in a sufficiently competitive environment

But you have to assume that there is such a competitive environment; although, to have a perfectly competitive market is really difficult, especially in the field of technology products and services. And repealing the GA#89 doens't provide any help for member countries for the establishment of such a market. The risks a re too high.

[Auralia]

The resolution states that "intentionally blocking [or] degrading the ability of any person to access...any lawful content...through the Internet" constitutes network discrimination. This would seem to ban any sort of tiered service, including rate-limiting and bandwidth caps. This interpretation is only confirmed by the preamble's condemnation of "discriminatory pricing schemes."

But there is a diffence between a normal price and "discrinatory pricing schemes", I believe.

The text suggests that common billing practices are "discriminatory pricing schemes".

Not in a sufficiently competitive environment

But you have to assume that there is such a competitive environment; although, to have a perfectly competitive market is really difficult, especially in the field of technology products and services.

Perhaps in some countries, but not Auralia.

And repealing the GA#89 doens't provide any help for member countries for the establishment of such a market. The risks a re too high.

Nations remain free to pass national network neutrality legislation with or without GAR #89.

[Auralia]

Just so everyone knows, the following are the Open Internet Principles which were adopted by the Auralian Telecommunications Commission a number of years ago. These principles are incompatible with GAR #89, as they permit network discrimination so long as it does not constitute anti-competitive behaviour.

Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice within the bandwidth limits and quality of service of their service plan.

Consumers are entitled to run and use the lawful Internet applications and services of their choice within the bandwidth limits and quality of service of their service plan.

Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network.

Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

((OOC: These principles are based on Cisco's view on net neutrality.))

[New Tarajan]

Perhaps in some countries, but not Auralia.

But you can't propose something to the WA only thinking about your country.

Just so everyone knows, the following are the Open Internet Principles which were adopted by the Auralian Telecommunications Commission a number of years ago. These principles are incompatible with GAR #89, as they permit network discrimination so long as it does not constitute anti-competitive behaviour.

Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice within the bandwidth limits and quality of service of their service plan.

Consumers are entitled to run and use the lawful Internet applications and services of their choice within the bandwidth limits and quality of service of their service plan.

Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network.

Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

So, let me suppose what should happen in a country of recent development: without a sufficiently high number of providers, the first access to the Internet would be controlled by few oligopolists (maybe, only one of them!). Yes, there is already the freedom of the single national legislations...but without the GA#89 they would lose a support for a non-discriminatory policy.
Also, thin about a country with great ethnic conflicts and discriminations: in a nation like this, providers use discriminatory prices only against a determined category. With the support of the GA#89, this situation could be countered better than without it.

The text suggest that common billing practices are "discriminatory pricing schemes".

Sincerely, I believe the text doesn't necessarily suggest such an interpretation.

[Auralia]

But you can't propose something to the WA only thinking about your country.

That's ridiculous. If I believe that a WA resolution is harming my country, I will always speak out against it.

Yes, there is already the freedom of the single national legislations...but without the GA#89 they would lose a support for a non-discriminatory policy.

How so?

The text suggest that common billing practices are "discriminatory pricing schemes".

Sincerely, I believe the text doesn't necessarily suggest such an interpretation.

The text uses an extremely broad definition of network discrimination. So broad, in fact, that the text has to explicitly state that the text does not create an affirmative obligation to provide Internet access, because normally that would be considered "intentionally blocking...the ability of any person to access...the Internet." It seems clear that the text prohibits bandwidth caps, rate-limiting, and just about anything aside from unlimited Internet access for a flat fee (with maybe a single rate or bandwidth cap applied to all customers).