NationStates

I'm pretty sure that UDP packets aren't 'simultaneously interconnected'. They're just sent. But that's just a nitpick.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I'm pretty sure that UDP packets aren't 'simultaneously interconnected'. They're just sent. But that's just a nitpick.

"simultaneously interconnected packet based telecommunications networks" ... the bold part modifies the bold part. I'm trying to indicate multiple connections at the game time, which doesn't exist with traditional telephony except in the real early days with the "party line" which was in many respects like an analog version of ethernet wiring systems. CB radio is an example of such a system on the airwaves. The idea is that one person can broadcast to and receive from multiple persons at more or less the same time.

On the other hand there is broadcast UDP in which the same packet is received and processed by multiple systems more or less around the same time. But that's also a nitpick.

Tzorsland wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I'm pretty sure that UDP packets aren't 'simultaneously interconnected'. They're just sent. But that's just a nitpick.

"simultaneously interconnected packet based telecommunications networks" ... the bold part modifies the bold part.

Suggestion, if you put a comma after "interconnected" and hyphenate "packet based" then your intended meaning comes through a little clearer.

Your Excellencies,

We are going to vote for this new resolution and, of course, for the repeal of previous one.

But we would appreciate that the new resolution "encourages nations to ensure access capability to all citizens".

Sincerely yours.

"Well, it's been a rather long time, hasn't it? Anyway, congratulations on probably repealing my resolution, and because of that, I think I should try to make sure that this one is as good as it can be. Now, lets go though it, shall we?"

Auralia wrote:

1. Defines "the internet", for the purposes of this resolution, as any publicly accessible system of interconnected telecommunications networks using a packet-switched, end-to-end protocol to communicate between endpoints;

"This is now a much better definition. The only problem is that, like you noticed about my resolution, your resolution still applies to IPTV in any situation where it applies to the internet. If the internet is publicly accessible (in the sense that you can sign up for it at a number of service providers) than IPTV is also publicly accessible, and both use a packet-switched, end-to-end protocol."

Auralia wrote:

Further defines "internet service provider" as a business or public entity that provides access to the internet to residential, business, or mobile consumers in exchange for compensation,

"This definition still does not apply to nonprofits or governments (unless a 'public entity' is a government) who do not take compensation for internet access.Really, governments are my primary concern. This will allow governments to block or degrade access to websites without any indication or law. I do not believe that governments should be allowed to do that."

Auralia wrote:

Declares that member nations must require internet service providers to:

1. allow authorized users of their network to access and use the legal internet content, applications and services of their choice within the bandwidth limits and quality of service of their service plan,
2. allow authorized users of their network to connect to the internet using a legal device of their choice,
3. clearly inform authorized users of their network of any discrimination between legal internet content, applications and services on their network, and
4. refrain from unjust discrimination between legal internet content, and applications and services on their network, including but not limited to discrimination that has a substantial anti-competitive effect;

Further declares that member nations have the right to determine for themselves whether to adopt more restrictive network neutrality regulations, within the confines of this and previous World Assembly resolutions;

"While not going as far as I might like, this is acceptable."

Auralia wrote:

Draconae wrote:"Who determines what is unjust? The ISP? And if the ISP decides that increasing its profits is just, what then? The WA nation? And if the WA nation declines to regulate, what then?"

The World Assembly member state decides what is unjust, with the understanding that "discrimination that has a substantial anti-competitive effect" should be considered unjust. Therefore, the member state must, at a minimum, intervene in cases where there is discrimination that has a substantial anti-competitive effect.

"True. I am now entirely comfortable with that clause."

Auralia wrote:

Draconae wrote:"I'm not sure why this is necessary. Nothing in this resolution or my resolution did so anyway."

I think this resolution could imply some of the above; I want to make sure that this does not occur.

"Your repeal of my resolution does not rely upon or mention any of these, despite my lack of similar clauses. I believe these assurances are unnecessary."

Can you explain why this is Free Trade? The resolution it's to replace is Social Justice.

Nessuna-Arma wrote:Can you explain why this is Free Trade? The resolution it's to replace is Social Justice.

I don't think social justice is acceptable for the old one. That said, free trade??? I might think human rights. The free trade category is supposed to deal with international free trade.

No, it's about striking down barriers to commerce. Free trade increases economic freedoms. It states that in the category descriptions on the Rules thread. Auralia has already explained exactly why this proposal would increase economic freedoms.

2nd Claus:

Further defines "internet service provider" as a business or public entity that provides access to the internet to residential, business, or mobile consumers in exchange for compensation,

So if a service provider doesn't receive compensation for providing Internet access then this proposal wouldn't apply to them?

Bitely wrote:2nd Claus:

Further defines "internet service provider" as a business or public entity that provides access to the internet to residential, business, or mobile consumers in exchange for compensation,

So if a service provider doesn't receive compensation for providing Internet access then this proposal wouldn't apply to them?

"Indeed." Ambassador Evander Blackbourne replies. "This is a surprisingly intelligent observation from an Ambassador I have heard nothing but bad things about."

Excidium Planetis wrote:

Bitely wrote:2nd Claus:

So if a service provider doesn't receive compensation for providing Internet access then this proposal wouldn't apply to them?

"Indeed." Ambassador Evander Blackbourne replies. "This is a surprisingly intelligent observation from an Ambassador I have heard nothing but bad things about."

Or he just read my comment.

viewtopic.php?p=32345252#p32345252

Nessuna-Arma wrote:Excuse me. I know I'm new here, but I have a question. In #2 you define "internet service provider" as an entity that provides access "for compensation". What if a nation provides free internet to all its citizens and there is no compensation? Does the entire law not affect that nation?

Bitely wrote:2nd Claus:

Further defines "internet service provider" as a business or public entity that provides access to the internet to residential, business, or mobile consumers in exchange for compensation,

So if a service provider doesn't receive compensation for providing Internet access then this proposal wouldn't apply to them?

Qlerb offers free internet to all citizens as a subsidized public utility, run by the government. If this resolution were to pass as-is, that would require the dismantling of our current system, which our citizens enjoy, into one where companies must be created and citizens forced to pay. Unless this is changed, we will be wholeheartedly campaigning against it.

We understand the desire to help create a just and fair system, while trying to eliminate or regulate unfair, harmful, or deadly elements, but this particular clause strikes me as worrysome.

Qlerb wrote:

Nessuna-Arma wrote:Excuse me. I know I'm new here, but I have a question. In #2 you define "internet service provider" as an entity that provides access "for compensation". What if a nation provides free internet to all its citizens and there is no compensation? Does the entire law not affect that nation?

Bitely wrote:2nd Claus:

So if a service provider doesn't receive compensation for providing Internet access then this proposal wouldn't apply to them?

Qlerb offers free internet to all citizens as a subsidized public utility, run by the government. If this resolution were to pass as-is, that would require the dismantling of our current system, which our citizens enjoy, into one where companies must be created and citizens forced to pay. Unless this is changed, we will be wholeheartedly campaigning against it.

We understand the desire to help create a just and fair system, while trying to eliminate or regulate unfair, harmful, or deadly elements, but this particular clause strikes me as worrysome.

"Nothing in this resolution prevents Qlerb from providing free internet to all citizens, or even from implementing net neutrality regulations on Qlerb government internet. However, it does not require other governments to, at the very least, disclose discrimination between network content and refrain from unjust discrimination. That is the major issue with this resolution."

Nessuna-Arma wrote:Excuse me. I know I'm new here, but I have a question. In #2 you define "internet service provider" as an entity that provides access "for compensation". What if a nation provides free internet to all its citizens and there is no compensation? Does the entire law not affect that nation?

Taxes might be considered compensation.

Wallenburg wrote:

Nessuna-Arma wrote:Excuse me. I know I'm new here, but I have a question. In #2 you define "internet service provider" as an entity that provides access "for compensation". What if a nation provides free internet to all its citizens and there is no compensation? Does the entire law not affect that nation?

Taxes might be considered compensation.

"But are they considered compensation for the internet service? That may not be true even if they are considered compensation."

Wallenburg wrote:

Nessuna-Arma wrote:Excuse me. I know I'm new here, but I have a question. In #2 you define "internet service provider" as an entity that provides access "for compensation". What if a nation provides free internet to all its citizens and there is no compensation? Does the entire law not affect that nation?

Taxes might be considered compensation.

"That's a mighty stretch. Besides, the author answered my question already. This does not apply to free internet."

Nessuna-Arma wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Taxes might be considered compensation.

"That's a mighty stretch. Besides, the author answered my question already. This does not apply to free internet."

That's a major stretch. Besides what if a company sells Tv service and provides Internet as an added free service?

Qlerb wrote:

Nessuna-Arma wrote:Excuse me. I know I'm new here, but I have a question. In #2 you define "internet service provider" as an entity that provides access "for compensation". What if a nation provides free internet to all its citizens and there is no compensation? Does the entire law not affect that nation?

Bitely wrote:2nd Claus:

So if a service provider doesn't receive compensation for providing Internet access then this proposal wouldn't apply to them?

Qlerb offers free internet to all citizens as a subsidized public utility, run by the government. If this resolution were to pass as-is, that would require the dismantling of our current system, which our citizens enjoy, into one where companies must be created and citizens forced to pay. Unless this is changed, we will be wholeheartedly campaigning against it.

We understand the desire to help create a just and fair system, while trying to eliminate or regulate unfair, harmful, or deadly elements, but this particular clause strikes me as worrysome.

"This is an incorrect interpretation. The definition of internet service provider clearly only refers to publicly or privately owned commercial entities. A non-commercial internet service provider, such as your public utility, can continue on doing whatever it currently does. This proposals provisions relating to internet service providers simply wouldn't apply to it. Whereas our semi-state Board of Posts and Telegraphs which is the dominant internet service provider in Bananaistan will have to apply the provisions of the proposal as it charges a monthly or bi-monthly fee to its clients.

"As it stands, the People's Republic of Bananaistan will support this."

- Ted

Bitely wrote:

Nessuna-Arma wrote:"That's a mighty stretch. Besides, the author answered my question already. This does not apply to free internet."

That's a major stretch. Besides what if a company sells Tv service and provides Internet as an added free service?

"You're talking about a company. That receives compensation for its services. I'm talking about a nation where internet is free. Do you not see the obvious differences?"

Nessuna-Arma wrote:

Bitely wrote:That's a major stretch. Besides what if a company sells Tv service and provides Internet as an added free service?

"You're talking about a company. That receives compensation for its services. I'm talking about a nation where internet is free. Do you not see the obvious differences?"

Yes. I agree with you on that. But, what I'm adding is what if a company doesn't technically get compensated for the internet service and they receive their founding from another source such as TV service or newspapers.

"You mean like, 'buy our newspaper and receive free internet for six months'? That's a company, selling its services, getting compensated for it. Unless you're talking about something so far-fetched, like, an ISP that is free only to paying customers of X and does not provide its service to anyone else. See, even that is arguable that the company fits the definition of 'a business or public entity that provides access to the internet to residential, business, or wireless consumers in exchange for compensation' if one is required to buy a service unrelated to the internet in order to receive the internet service. That's still very different from free internet for all."

Nessuna-Arma wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Taxes might be considered compensation.

"That's a mighty stretch. Besides, the author answered my question already. This does not apply to free internet."

Emphasis on "might".

Bitely wrote:

Nessuna-Arma wrote:"You're talking about a company. That receives compensation for its services. I'm talking about a nation where internet is free. Do you not see the obvious differences?"

Yes. I agree with you on that. But, what I'm adding is what if a company doesn't technically get compensated for the internet service and they receive their founding from another source such as TV service or newspapers.

Well, since they aren't providing it in exchange for compensation, they would not be subject to these regulations. Which makes sense. Regulations like these on gift-giving would be rather strange.

((OOC: Haven't forgotten about this! Further comments coming shortly.))

Auralia wrote:((OOC: Haven't forgotten about this! Further comments coming shortly.))

Well, you should probably hurry up with it, it's been a while since the repeal, and most voted for on the idea that it would be replaced sooner rather than later.