[PASSED] Repeal "Internet Net Neutrality Act"

[WA Delegacy for NATO]

The NORTH AMERICAN TREATY ORGANIZATION supports this resolution after the General Assembly voted 18 to 0 with one abstention to support this resolution.

I believe that nations should not be forced to limit their internet providers by the order of the WA though I do believe in limiting the internet at a national level. The resolution in question does not fully address the issue and is too vague and this repeal is necessary.
~Harry Reid, WA Delegate speaking on the General Assembly Floor

[Separatist Peoples]

This has our support. Considering the success of tiered service in every other walk of capitalism I've had the fortune of encountering, I find anything less then the freedom to offer better service for more money to be appalling.

[Blackgrass]

The People of Blackgrass is offended that there is such a strong population of people undoing a solid GA resolution, simply because they do not like the way that it creates neutrality for citizens of the world to utilize the Internet.

We would like to further remind those that do not wish to comply with such laws that they are free to GTFO of the World Assembly at any point of their choosing, and they are by no means restricted from doing so at any time.

EDIT: We would also like to bring to light that a tiered model for Internet Services does not in fact, reduce discrimination. It encourages capalistic gain, which exists only for larger ISP companies to come to dominate and drive all the others around it out of business, all the while providing less quality and stability of service than they would otherwise be required; clearly the resolution author does not recognize this or allow it to influence their decision on such matters, as Auralia has one of the most highly inflated, distorted, and corrupted economy that we have yet seen.

When it is nearly time for this resolution to pass, we shall return to the issue; if it has not been struck down because Auralia has engaged in vote buying early on, then we will most likely be withdrawing from the World Assembly ourselves to keep such horrible resolution from passing and devistating our people's economy and marketplace.

[Arkiasis]

Considering that telecom companies do not offer fair prices and often time throttle internet service, provide outrageous data cap limits, Arkaisis votes against this bill in order to prevent bandwidth throttling and bandwidth caps.

Come to Canada and try to dare defend tiered service, our telecom companies screw us over by throttling internet, ridiculous data cap limits, and terrible package deals. And in many areas of the country you no choice but to use Bell, Rogers, or Telus, all of whom seem to have some sort of agreement to continuously screw over customers.

[Auralia]

Come to Canada and try to dare defend tiered service, our telecom companies screw us over by throttling internet, ridiculous data cap limits, and terrible package deals. And in many areas of the country you no choice but to use Bell, Rogers, or Telus, all of whom seem to have some sort of agreement to continuously screw over customers.

I live in Canada. I use Teksavvy, which gives me 10Mbps down and 300GB for $36.95/month. I think that's a fair price.

[Hittanryan]

Come to Canada and try to dare defend tiered service, our telecom companies screw us over by throttling internet, ridiculous data cap limits, and terrible package deals. And in many areas of the country you no choice but to use Bell, Rogers, or Telus, all of whom seem to have some sort of agreement to continuously screw over customers.

I live in Canada. I use Teksavvy, which gives me 10Mbps down and 300GB for $36.95/month. I think that's a fair price.

Ever consider the possibility that your deal isn't available in all locales? How many times to I have to bring it up, tiered service will hurt Internet access in rural areas with low competition.

[Lumeau]

Ambassador Russell:

I wanted to clear up one or two misunderstandings I believe we had with each other.

First, I believe I misunderstood your comment about the difficulty in linking an ISP's expenses with the cost of service. I took it to mean something akin to "passing the cost on to the consumer," but it appears you meant something else. If you could explain what you meant, that would be useful, although as this resolution appears to be on its way to passage, there is no need if you have other matters to which to attend.

Second, my comment on competition possibly eliminating the need for government price-setting was merely a point about how to keep prices down without tiered service. Additionally, my comment about internet access becoming a virtual necessity was in response to your point about the WA mandating a "one size fits all" pricing model and then blaming the member-state if it can't be implemented. I am of the opinion that, regardless of whether ISPs in a certain country offer tiered service or a flat rate, if a large number of its citizens are without basic internet access, there is probably something very wrong with the way the nation is managed that has nothing to do with the WA.

As far as me establishing why I believe tiered service is "bad," I have done that in a number of previous posts. I'm not presenting it as an irrefutable collection of evidence; it's merely my own opinion. At the same time, I do recognize that it is one acceptable way of several to make internet access available to the masses. I simply think it is not the BEST solution.

In any event, I reviewed your draft of your proposed replacement resolution. Overall, it looks reasonable and well-thought-out. I will contribute a thought or two in that thread and will most likely be supporting it if it reaches quorum.

Regards,

The Executive-General of the Commonwealth of Lumeau

[Allinlia]

While we are in favor of internet neutrality on principle, the resolution at issue has too many problems to let stand. As we feel that a new. more balanced net neutrality resolution is necessary, we support this repeal.

We need to focus on preventing throttling and caps, while still allowing providers to charge more based on use and offer faster, higher quality service for more money.

[Pacifist Chipmunks]

I live in Canada. I use Teksavvy, which gives me 10Mbps down and 300GB for $36.95/month. I think that's a fair price.

Ever consider the possibility that your deal isn't available in all locales? How many times to I have to bring it up, tiered service will hurt Internet access in rural areas with low competition.

Yes, but eliminating tiered pricing does not simply extend this amazing deal to rural areas: it makes the deal extinct in any area.

There is nothing in the target resolution that magically reduces the marginal cost of providing internet to remote areas. This still costs more to the ISP. (Or we could extend this to providing internet at blazing speeds or providing internet with immense bandwidth--each of these has a higher marginal cost to the ISP.)

Producers in a competitive market will maximize profits by producing a quantity of the good that makes price equal to marginal cost (because after that, each good produced loses money: marginal cost for good > the price received for good). If firms can segregate classes of its product, it can optimize each separate good: rural internet, non-rural internet, etc. This means tiered pricing. The rural internet has a higher marginal cost, so it should have lower production and a higher price at equilibrium. Non-rural internet is relatively less costly to produce, so a relatively large quantity of production and a lower price should be present at equilibrium.

If a producer cannot segregate products, then there is only one marginal cost, which is probably something like a weighted average of the costs of rural and non-rural marginal costs. As such, we should see a moderate amount of production and a moderate price (higher or lower depending on things like population density and infrastructure requirements for a particular nation). Yes, the price should be lower for rural users, but it seems inconceivable that this universal price would get as low as the non-rural prices under product segregation. And, importantly, this universal price will be higher for many more non-rural users than they would have had under product segregation. Essentially, the effect is the same as a tax to all non-rural users, offset by a subsidy to rural internet users. That sort of redistributive policy, in PC's view, is better left to national governments than WA legislation. In national governments, each nation's rural constituents and non-rural constituents have a better opportunity to be represented than they would in the WA.

Of course, in this post, I am momentarily setting aside the questions of whether the target resolution actually disallows product segregation, etc., in order to make the point that "there is no free lunch" for policy makers. Helping out rural internet users comes at a cost to someone else. We, of PC, would argue that these tradeoffs are optimally made at as local of a level of government as possible (i.e. not at the WA, which is the least local level of government known to Nationstates-kind).

-Bombous Hecklesprecht

[Eireann Fae]

I live in Canada. I use Teksavvy, which gives me 10Mbps down and 300GB for $36.95/month. I think that's a fair price.

(OOC: I think $50/mo [I checked, USD/CAD is close enough to talk about this] for 15/5 with no cap is fairer - or $70/mo for 75/35 and still no cap. Basic service at a more affordable $37/mo isn't that bad at all, though, if you're not in a family of streamers like me, where a 300gb cap would be hit within two weeks :-)

[Blackgrass]

I live in Canada. I use Teksavvy, which gives me 10Mbps down and 300GB for $36.95/month. I think that's a fair price.

(OOC: I think $50/mo [I checked, USD/CAD is close enough to talk about this] for 15/5 with no cap is fairer - or $70/mo for 75/35 and still no cap. Basic service at a more affordable $37/mo isn't that bad at all, though, if you're not in a family of streamers like me, where a 300gb cap would be hit within two weeks :-)

OOC: I personally live in Kentucky, US, and where I am is EXTREMELY local; we pay 70USD a month for 5Mbps/1Mbps bandwidth (no capping), and Cable TV (because we are not allowed to purchase Internet without either purchasing Phone or Cable (to run it off of Dial-up or Cable).

While there a few (read: 2) other "upgrades" available to us as choice, they are not really, as I have gotten nowhere near the 5/1 speeds promised from day 1 of having purchased this service. And there is no compition, because with the tiered servicing that the local phone company owns, no local ISP could start up financially.

When the government allows such a service to fall to the private sector instead of classifying it as a civil service, along the lines of water, electricity, etc. then tiered services occur, and there ends up being one and only one ISP in a rural area; every member of that community gets screwed and has to live what what they get, reguardless of what they pay for, at the inflated costs that the one ISP decides to charge, even when they are not in fact offering the service they are promoting and advertising.

Furthermore, boycotting it isn't an option, as they are the only competition in the neighbouring seven counties; to boycott them would be akin to doing without internet, possibly forever, as nothing would force them to once again do business with the citizens, as they are a private company.

Even more disturbing is that our own ISP blatenly lies on their website, claiming to offer several packages that do not exist. They will not allow us or anyone in this area to purchase a subscription les than 70USD a month, and it HAS to come with either Cable TV or a Phone line (which would result in DSL speeds/performance).

[Dzhumabaev]

Against.

OOC: Have seen the effects of oligopoly, results in tiered services where there was once a standard. Data caps implemented across the major providers. Internet throttled unfairly based on type of traffic. This extends beyond internet to the other telecom services - like cell phones and cable TV. Major providers reach silent agreements where none offer unlimited service - as once one offers it, they all will have to and ultimately it will be less profitable for all of them than the ridiculous data cap pay schemes currently in place.

[Auralia]

Against.

OOC: Have seen the effects of oligopoly, results in tiered services where there was once a standard. Data caps implemented across the major providers. Internet throttled unfairly based on type of traffic. This extends beyond internet to the other telecom services - like cell phones and cable TV. Major providers reach silent agreements where none offer unlimited service - as once one offers it, they all will have to and ultimately it will be less profitable for all of them than the ridiculous data cap pay schemes currently in place.

I think it's worth noting that tiered service and a lack of competition are two different things.

Also, the move away from unlimited plans is largely due to the advent of Netflix and other bandwidth-hungry services.

[Auralia]

By the way, I just want to express my complete and utter shock at how well this resolution is doing. I expected maybe ~55% support, but it's currently sitting at 81%.

[Hittanryan]

Yes, good for you, Auralia, the Lemming Effect lets you get your way and turns a bunch of ISPs into content gatekeepers. Bravo.

[Auralia]

Tiered pricing is good for massive media producers, middlemen content providers (such as iTunes), and the richest consumers. It is garbage for everyone else. Arguments that it is better for the average consumer are based in woolly-headed idealistic right-libertarian claptrap about rational self-interest driving markets. Markets don't work that way.

Real life seems to disagree.

This means class differences in the ability to consume information - which is specifically the most toxic possible poison for democracy. Once ordinary people are priced out of full and unlimited access to information, they are effectively castrated. If voters cannot access the same (or same amount of) information as the media class, they will inevitably vote badly and against their own interests. Tiered pricing of internet service is the modern equivalent of 1920s newspapers charging ten cents for the front page and ten dollars for every additional page - the only people who benefit are the people who already have all the benefits.

Uh, no. The most basic broadband Internet plans are still capable of visiting news sites.

Only fools, dictators, and plutocrats can possibly be in favor. We must consider not merely voting against this garbage, but also the formation of a general slush fund or foundation dedicated to building secret pirate internet cables in nations that fall victim to this leprous strain of the "free" market dogma as regards their telecommunications policy. We shall hold a ceremonial burning of this resolution on the floor of our legislature, live webcast (and archived), as our public libraries state on their front doors, free to all.

Is this nation a parody of the far left? Because you're doing an excellent job.

...as Auralia has one of the most highly inflated, distorted, and corrupted economy that we have yet seen.

Really? Do you have any evidence for that claim?

[Auralia]

First, I believe I misunderstood your comment about the difficulty in linking an ISP's expenses with the cost of service. I took it to mean something akin to "passing the cost on to the consumer," but it appears you meant something else.

What I meant is that ISPs cannot directly pass on the cost of providing Internet access to the consumer, so they have to create new business models that are fair but are distanced from the actual costs of maintaining a network.

In any event, I reviewed your draft of your proposed replacement resolution. Overall, it looks reasonable and well-thought-out. I will contribute a thought or two in that thread and will most likely be supporting it if it reaches quorum.

Happy to hear it!

[Dzhumabaev]

Against.

OOC: Have seen the effects of oligopoly, results in tiered services where there was once a standard. Data caps implemented across the major providers. Internet throttled unfairly based on type of traffic. This extends beyond internet to the other telecom services - like cell phones and cable TV. Major providers reach silent agreements where none offer unlimited service - as once one offers it, they all will have to and ultimately it will be less profitable for all of them than the ridiculous data cap pay schemes currently in place.

I think it's worth noting that tiered service and a lack of competition are two different things.

Also, the move away from unlimited plans is largely due to the advent of Netflix and other bandwidth-hungry services.

Telcos deliver a constant stream of unlimited selected content through digital cable networks (which is also used for the internet) and in many cases this includes on demand viewing. The companies never start charging extra for viewing over a certain amount of television programming. It is only when one chooses instead to seek content through a different content provider, only then does bandwidth become relevant to them.

This shoddy repeal is nothing but an attempt to promote the interest of large corporations at the expense of citizens rights to access of information and choice of content provider.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Tiered pricing is good for massive media producers, middlemen content providers (such as iTunes), and the richest consumers. It is garbage for everyone else. Arguments that it is better for the average consumer are based in woolly-headed idealistic right-libertarian claptrap about rational self-interest driving markets. Markets don't work that way.

Real life seems to disagree.

Bullshit.

This means class differences in the ability to consume information - which is specifically the most toxic possible poison for democracy. Once ordinary people are priced out of full and unlimited access to information, they are effectively castrated. If voters cannot access the same (or same amount of) information as the media class, they will inevitably vote badly and against their own interests. Tiered pricing of internet service is the modern equivalent of 1920s newspapers charging ten cents for the front page and ten dollars for every additional page - the only people who benefit are the people who already have all the benefits.

Uh, no. The most basic broadband Internet plans are still capable of visiting news sites.

In net-neutral countries, sure. Under tiered pricing, once you've streamed so much video of analysis, reportage, Frontline, and Jon Stewart, either you're done for the month or you pay a stiff penalty. Such a model makes participation in the political process more expensive the more responsible you are at it, plain and simple. And that is the road to oligarchy.

Only fools, dictators, and plutocrats can possibly be in favor. We must consider not merely voting against this garbage, but also the formation of a general slush fund or foundation dedicated to building secret pirate internet cables in nations that fall victim to this leprous strain of the "free" market dogma as regards their telecommunications policy. We shall hold a ceremonial burning of this resolution on the floor of our legislature, live webcast (and archived), as our public libraries state on their front doors, free to all.

Is this nation a parody of the far left? Because you're doing an excellent job.

Parody? No. Idealist? Yes. Of course that's your first reaction; nobody in Western civilization has any imagination anymore. Obviously any idea outside of the think-tank norm is automatically some kind of communist conspiracy or put-on.

Letting market participants do whatever they please is not the way to fix all social and economic problems; and some human needs are not best met by markets at all. The fact that that's news (or worse, lies) to a lot of people is really goddamn alarming.

[Retired WerePenguins]

In net-neutral countries, sure. Under tiered pricing, once you've streamed so much video of analysis, reportage, Frontline, and Jon Stewart, either you're done for the month or you pay a stiff penalty. Such a model makes participation in the political process more expensive the more responsible you are at it, plain and simple. And that is the road to oligarchy.

Give me Jon Stewart or give me death?

Wait a minute, weren't we talking about NEWS? Participation in the political process? That sort of thing?

A couple of well places REAL NEWS distribution sites, a BUFFER with access to FACEBOOK, TWITTER and LINKEDIN and you have participation in the political process.

But you are missing the point, this is NationStates, not the real world. WA resolutions do not apply to nations in the real world and so called "net-neutral" countries are based on law that is not the WA resolution in dispute.

The key element of the WA resolution is ...

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 from a technical perspective the resolution does prevent charging a fee for data access beyond a certain limit, since at that point you are "imposing a fee."

Technically speaking a Tiered service is possible under the existing WA law as long as it does not interfere with the base tier. This can be done in a variety of ways (more expensive devices, less connections on an individual hub that would cause less cross traffic (note that the provider cannot interfere, but interference from other users is not technically a violation) and so forth.

This resolution is not an onerous as a real world Net Neutrality regulation and should not be debated as though it were.

[Roski]

Tiered internet services allow a private sector to grow larger. People forget this simple idea! It creates competition, which lowers prices, which allows more people to buy.

$39.99/m for 40 people is fine,
however,
29.99/m for 54 is better.

If I have a service that offers 15 up and 10 down for $39.99/m
then my competitors offers the same package for $34.99/m
I will drop to $29.99/m So it isn't a bad idea.
I can offer lower internet at lower prices, 10 down 5 up at say $9.99/m
And I can offer much better internet 30 down 25 up at say $49.99/m

[Retired WerePenguins]

Conversely,

Not everyone needs the highest speed bandwidth at the highest price, just like not everyone needs the cell phone with the most features.

I may or may not like my current upload/download speed. It may or may not be sufficient for my needs. But must I be forced to pay the higher price because everyone must be treated the same?

in addition to upload/download speed, round trip packet times is also vital. The needs of remote operating surgeons is far greater than the needs of the average consumer of internet news.

[Auralia]

Repeal "Internet Net Neutrality Act" was passed 10,019 votes to 2,395.

Yay!

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Congrats."

OOC: Hmm, it seems like the mechanical effect included a cut to the Education budget; otherwise I'm not sure.