[PROPOSAL] ISP Regulation Act

[ABC]

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Hereby, the World Assembly:

Acknowledging the role of the internet in a consumer's daily life.

Concerned that ISP's (Internet Service Providers) hold the necessary resources to cheat, deceive, and influence consumers by altering, censoring, and blocking content they disagree with.

#1. Defines:
(a) An Internet Service Provider or ISP as a company that provides internet access to residential and/or commercial customers.
(b) Legal as allowed by the national or international community with international law taking precedence over national law
(c) The internet as an international network of data consisting of interconnected networks of devices as well as standardized protocols.
(d) Consumer as a user of the internet who pays monetary expense to receive access to it or receives access to it through someone else paying monetary expense for use by others

#2. Prohibits an ISP from:
(a) Blocking/censoring any internet content that is allowed by national and international law with international law taking precedence over national law
(b) Prohibiting consumers access to the internet for any reason with the exception of the doing so to prevent violation of international law or national law (with international law taking precedence over national law) or for not receiving the monetary amount specified in the contract
(c) Giving significantly less bandwidth then they say the give to their consumers, to the point where the difference in the real bandwidth and the advertised bandwidth noticeably affects the speed at which a consumer can access the internet

#3. Establishes the ISP Regulatory Committee

#4. Permits the ISP Regulatory Committee to:
(a) Initiate investigations of an ISP at the order of an official national or international court, consumer, or at its own discretion
(b) Place sensors with the capability to measure an ISP's bandwidth to make sure they give as much or about as much bandwidth as they say they do
(b) Require ISP's to pay all affected customers a percentage, specified by the ISP Regulatory Committee, of their net profit from those consumers as a penalty for not abiding by these terms

NOTE: This has already received feedback from my fellow TNP'ers. It's now time to get feedback from everyone else before turning this into a real proposal.

Hereby, the World Assembly:

Acknowledging the role of the internet in a consumer's daily life.

Concerned that ISP's (Internet Service Providers) hold the necessary resources to cheat, deceive, and influence consumers by altering, censoring, and blocking content they disagree with.

#1. Defines:
(a) An Internet Service Provider or ISP as a company that provides internet access to residential and/or commercial customers.
(b) Legal as allowed by the national or international community with international law taking precedence over national law
(c) The internet as an international network of data consisting of interconnected networks of devices as well as standardized protocols.
(d) Consumer as a user of the internet who pays monetary expense to receive access to it or receives access to it through someone else paying monetary expense for use by others

#2. Prohibits an ISP from:
(a) Blocking/censoring any internet content that is allowed by national and international law with international law taking precedence over national law
(b) Prohibiting consumers access to the internet for any reason with the exception of the doing so to prevent violation of international law or for not receiving the monetary amount specified in the contract
(c) Giving significantly less bandwidth then they say the give to their consumers, to the point where the difference in the real bandwidth and the advertised bandwidth noticeably affects the speed at which a consumer can access the internet

#3. Establishes the ISP Regulatory Committee

#4. Permits the ISP Regulatory Committee to:
(a) Initiate investigations of an ISP at the order of an official national or international court, consumer, or at its own discretion
(b) Place sensors with the capability to measure an ISP's bandwidth to make sure they give as much or about as much bandwidth as they say they do
(b) Require ISP's to pay all affected customers a percentage, specified by the ISP Regulatory Committee, of their net profit from those consumers as a penalty for not abiding by these terms

NOTE: This has already received feedback from my fellow TNP'ers. It's now time to get feedback from everyone else before turning this into a real proposal.

Hereby, the World Assembly:

Acknowledging the role of the internet in a consumer's daily life.

Concerned that ISP's (Internet Service Providers) hold the necessary resources to cheat, deceive, and influence consumers by altering, censoring, and blocking content they disagree with.

#1. Defines:
(a) An Internet Service Provider or ISP as a company that provides internet access to residential and/or commercial customers.
(b) Legal as allowed by the national or international community with international law taking precedence over national law
(c) The internet as an international network of data consisting of interconnected networks of devices as well as standardized protocols.
(d) Consumer as a user of the internet who pays monetary expense to receive access to it or receives access to it through someone else paying monetary expense for use by others

#2. Prohibits an ISP from:
(a) Blocking/censoring any internet content that is allowed by national and international law with international law taking precedence over national law
(b) Prohibiting consumers access to the internet for any reason with the exception of the doing so to prevent violation of international law
(c) Giving significantly less bandwidth then they say the give to their consumers, to the point where the difference in the real bandwidth and the advertised bandwidth noticeably affects the speed at which a consumer can access the internet

#3. Establishes the ISP Regulatory Committee

#4. Permits the ISP Regulatory Committee to:
(a) Initiate investigations of an ISP at the order of an official national or international court, consumer, or at its own discretion
(b) Place sensors with the capability to measure an ISP's bandwidth to make sure they give as much or about as much bandwidth as they say they do
(b) Require ISP's to pay all affected customers a percentage, specified by the ISP Regulatory Committee, of their net profit from those consumers as a penalty for not abiding by these terms

NOTE: This has already received feedback from my fellow TNP'ers. It's now time to get feedback from everyone else before turning this into a real proposal.

[Grays Harbor]

(b) Prohibiting consumers access to the internet for any reason with the exception of the doing so to prevent violation of international law

Not even for failure by the customer to pay their bill, or for ISPs to even charge for services provided, huh? Because that is exactly what you have done here.

[ABC]

(b) Prohibiting consumers access to the internet for any reason with the exception of the doing so to prevent violation of international law

Not even for failure by the customer to pay their bill, or for ISPs to even charge for services provided, huh? Because that is exactly what you have done here.

Oh wow! I just realized that. It has been fixed and the previous draft has been put under 'Draft 1'. Thank you for your feedback!

[ABC]

Any other suggestions?

[Mallorea and Riva]

Why, as a matter of policy, is it a good idea for the GA to regulate this field? You state a concern that ISPs will block some content they disagree with, so... what is the actual result of them blocking that content?

[Calladan]

Why, as a matter of policy, is it a good idea for the GA to regulate this field? You state a concern that ISPs will block some content they disagree with, so... what is the actual result of them blocking that content?

I can't speak for the author (since I am not them) but - for example - if the owner and CEO of the ISP had a fundamental objection to cooking shows, or puppies, then they might want to filter out any videos, pages, images and so forth that feature cooking shows. Or puppies.

Which would mean anyone using that ISP would see their access to the web greatly censored because the ISP is deciding what they get to see and what they don't. Which is wrong on so many levels.

Now I picked two somewhat trivial examples, but imagine that the ISP was owned and run by the wife, or son, or daughter, or husband, of someone in the government. And the person in the government asked their wife/son/daughter/husband to filter out anything that the government found objectionable - such as criticism of said government by foreign powers or domestic press or the like.

The state would not be censoring the internet directly (because it would be the ISP that is doing the filtering - not the state) so it could claim it doesn't filter the internet. But if the state can interfere with three or four of the major ISPs and put enough pressure on them to block various content then it would be defacto censorship.

So by having an ISP's charter (if you will) where the first duty of the ISP is to the customer, not to any one else, you can get round any potential for problems.

Arguably this is an issue of free speech. Which is DEFINITELY something The World Assembly should be interested in.

[Araraukar]

but imagine that the ISP was owned and run by the wife, or son, or daughter, or husband, of someone in the government.

OOC: Or the head of state themselves...

IC: It's weird to demand that the net must be uncensored even by private operators, when TV and radio programming are allowed to be censored when it's not news broadcasts. Surely if some ISP blocks a lot of sites, the people would "vote" with their wallets and change ISPs?

[Calladan]

but imagine that the ISP was owned and run by the wife, or son, or daughter, or husband, of someone in the government.

OOC: Or the head of state themselves...

IC: It's weird to demand that the net must be uncensored even by private operators, when TV and radio programming are allowed to be censored when it's not news broadcasts. Surely if some ISP blocks a lot of sites, the people would "vote" with their wallets and change ISPs?

What if there are limited number of ISPs? And the government can influence all of them? (Which is not beyond reason - assuming an ISP must have some kind of license to operate, a more...... unethical government could easily put pressure on an ISP to co-operate in certain ways in order to retain the license).

[ABC]

In a collective response to everyone, I don't want to make ISP's government owned or completely limit the free market. However, I do want people to be able to view anything and everything that is legal and have whatever they say be heard be anyone or everyone in accordance with the right to free speech. Radio and television are different concepts because in general, with the exception of Amateur Radio, they are one way while the internet is two way. If an ISP were to block another ISP's website just because they wanted to have control of the consumers options and force them to use that ISP, that clearly goes against civil rights. The internet isn't just a way of receiving news, it's a way of 2 way communication with others.

[Araraukar]

However, I do want people to be able to view anything and everything that is legal

Let's say that porn is legal in Nation A, but not in Nation B. There is a porn website based in Nation A. An ISP operates in both nations. It must block access to the porn site in Nation B to operate within their laws, but not in Nation A, where it is legal. However, in Nation A children below the age of consent cannot legally watch/obtain porn and providing them access to it is also banned by national laws and punishable by a fine.

How will the ISP prevent minors from accessing the porn site, if they are legally obligated to let "[anyone] view anything and everything that is legal"?

Someone from Nation B, whose mobile device operates on a subscriber contract made in Nation B, where accessing that porn site has been made impossible by the ISP, travels to Nation A. Is the ISP now obligated to remove the blocking from their connection for the time they're in the other nation and re-add it when they return to their own? Vice versa for someone from Nation A traveling to Nation B.

And what about if the ISP also operates in Nation C, where the age of consent is 14 and where people over the age of consent are allowed to partake pornographic productions. Someone from Nation A, where the age limit for porn workers is 18, tries to access that website. Is the ISP 1) obligated to let them view the contents which would be against their nation's laws if the site was based in their nation, 2) block an adult website though such sites are legal in their nation, or 3) which is the most ridiculous one, block only part of the content of the site to comply with both this proposed resolution and the national laws of the various nations? And that's even without anyone traveling to or from Nation C...

and have whatever they say be heard be anyone or everyone in accordance with the right to free speech.

What about nations where hate speech directed at a minority or religion or race is banned by law? What about children in their naivety providing detailed personal information about themselves online? What about websites (OOC: such as NationStates) that have their own code of conduct on written/broadcasted content? You can't honestly be wanting to use the WA to obliterate all the sensible restrictions placed on content and access across the net.

Radio and television are different concepts because in general, with the exception of Amateur Radio, they are one way while the internet is two way.

How is the net two-way, if you don't upload anything or write anything on a website somewhere?

If an ISP were to block another ISP's website just because they wanted to have control of the consumers options and force them to use that ISP, that clearly goes against civil rights.

Actually it doesn't, but most nations probably would have some laws or regulations against such limiting of fair competition.

The internet isn't just a way of receiving news, it's a way of 2 way communication with others.

Err, no. That's what phones are for. The net is mostly for displaying content to viewers. That it can be used for 2-way communication is correct, but then so can radios. Also, is it really 2-way communication if you're not actually communicating with someone, but are merely uploading content (OOC: think blogging or even Facebook) for others to view?

[ABC]

However, I do want people to be able to view anything and everything that is legal

Let's say that porn is legal in Nation A, but not in Nation B. There is a porn website based in Nation A. An ISP operates in both nations. It must block access to the porn site in Nation B to operate within their laws, but not in Nation A, where it is legal. However, in Nation A children below the age of consent cannot legally watch/obtain porn and providing them access to it is also banned by national laws and punishable by a fine.

How will the ISP prevent minors from accessing the porn site, if they are legally obligated to let "[anyone] view anything and everything that is legal"?

Someone from Nation B, whose mobile device operates on a subscriber contract made in Nation B, where accessing that porn site has been made impossible by the ISP, travels to Nation A. Is the ISP now obligated to remove the blocking from their connection for the time they're in the other nation and re-add it when they return to their own? Vice versa for someone from Nation A traveling to Nation B.

And what about if the ISP also operates in Nation C, where the age of consent is 14 and where people over the age of consent are allowed to partake pornographic productions. Someone from Nation A, where the age limit for porn workers is 18, tries to access that website. Is the ISP 1) obligated to let them view the contents which would be against their nation's laws if the site was based in their nation, 2) block an adult website though such sites are legal in their nation, or 3) which is the most ridiculous one, block only part of the content of the site to comply with both this proposed resolution and the national laws of the various nations? And that's even without anyone traveling to or from Nation C...

and have whatever they say be heard be anyone or everyone in accordance with the right to free speech.

What about nations where hate speech directed at a minority or religion or race is banned by law? What about children in their naivety providing detailed personal information about themselves online? What about websites (OOC: such as NationStates) that have their own code of conduct on written/broadcasted content? You can't honestly be wanting to use the WA to obliterate all the sensible restrictions placed on content and access across the net.

Radio and television are different concepts because in general, with the exception of Amateur Radio, they are one way while the internet is two way.

How is the net two-way, if you don't upload anything or write anything on a website somewhere?

If an ISP were to block another ISP's website just because they wanted to have control of the consumers options and force them to use that ISP, that clearly goes against civil rights.

Actually it doesn't, but most nations probably would have some laws or regulations against such limiting of fair competition.

The internet isn't just a way of receiving news, it's a way of 2 way communication with others.

Err, no. That's what phones are for. The net is mostly for displaying content to viewers. That it can be used for 2-way communication is correct, but then so can radios. Also, is it really 2-way communication if you're not actually communicating with someone, but are merely uploading content (OOC: think blogging or even Facebook) for others to view?

Anything that is legal in their country. If it is illegal in another country, the content can be blocked in the country where it's illegal, but not where it's illegal.

[Araraukar]

Anything that is legal in their country.

And if they travel to somewhere where it is legal, while still being illegal in their country?

OOC: Also, I suggest you snip or spoiler the very long posts, if you're just replying to the post as a whole. Saves time from scrolling through things people have already read.

[ABC]

They will have to abide by the law in the nation in which they have citizenship unless they have dual citizenship in whatever country they are in.

[Mallorea and Riva]

They will have to abide by the law in the nation in which they have citizenship unless they have dual citizenship in whatever country they are in.

Soooo if I have citizenship in my country, then move to yours, I still get to abide by my laws while in your nation? Pretty nifty deal.

[Shazbotdom]

"So basically, this is the World Assembly overstepping their bounds? Gotcha."

~Unnamed Shazbotdom Diplomat

[Aclion]

They will have to abide by the law in the nation in which they have citizenship unless they have dual citizenship in whatever country they are in.

Soooo if I have citizenship in my country, then move to yours, I still get to abide by my laws while in your nation? Pretty nifty deal.

Dibs! I get to tax ABC's GDP!!! Called it!!!

[Araraukar]

They will have to abide by the law in the nation in which they have citizenship unless they have dual citizenship in whatever country they are in.

That approach to laws would let someone from a nation where killing people is not punishable travel to another nation where murder is illegal, kill someone and not get in trouble?

[Calladan]

They will have to abide by the law in the nation in which they have citizenship unless they have dual citizenship in whatever country they are in.

That approach to laws would let someone from a nation where killing people is not punishable travel to another nation where murder is illegal, kill someone and not get in trouble?

That does seem odd. Generally we expect people in Calladan to obey the laws of Calladan, not wherever they are from. It makes for far easier policing and law enforcement

[ABC]

That approach to laws would let someone from a nation where killing people is not punishable travel to another nation where murder is illegal, kill someone and not get in trouble?

That does seem odd. Generally we expect people in Calladan to obey the laws of Calladan, not wherever they are from. It makes for far easier policing and law enforcement

I didn't think this completely through. I take that statement back. Instead, a person should abide by the laws of the country in which they are in. However, this is a bit off topic and I'd like to focus attention back on the draft proposal.

[Calladan]

That does seem odd. Generally we expect people in Calladan to obey the laws of Calladan, not wherever they are from. It makes for far easier policing and law enforcement

I didn't think this completely through. I take that statement back. Instead, a person should abide by the laws of the country in which they are in. However, this is a bit off topic and I'd like to focus attention back on the draft proposal.

Sorry - I thought this was relevent to the topic at hand, in that the proposal mentioned it in some way. My apologies.

[ABC]

I didn't think this completely through. I take that statement back. Instead, a person should abide by the laws of the country in which they are in. However, this is a bit off topic and I'd like to focus attention back on the draft proposal.

Sorry - I thought this was relevent to the topic at hand, in that the proposal mentioned it in some way. My apologies.

That's fine.

[Calladan]

Sorry - I thought this was relevent to the topic at hand, in that the proposal mentioned it in some way. My apologies.

That's fine.

However, in relation to the topic of national laws, I think I do have something relating to the topic at hand :-

(a) Blocking/censoring any internet content that is allowed by national and international law with international law taking precedence over national law

This makes sense, assuming that it means that people who are in Calladan are subject to Calladan law, no matter where they are from. (The description "allowed by national law" could be seen as a little fuzzy? Maybe?)

(b) Prohibiting consumers access to the internet for any reason with the exception of the doing so to prevent violation of international law or for not receiving the monetary amount specified in the contract

Given the restrictions in Clause a, wouldn't you need to include "national law" in this Clause as well? Because - from a plain text reading of this - if I was using the internet to violate the national laws of Calladan, this proposal would make it illegal for them to stop me doing that. Wouldn't it?

That's really my only concern

[ABC]

That's fine.

However, in relation to the topic of national laws, I think I do have something relating to the topic at hand :-

(a) Blocking/censoring any internet content that is allowed by national and international law with international law taking precedence over national law

This makes sense, assuming that it means that people who are in Calladan are subject to Calladan law, no matter where they are from. (The description "allowed by national law" could be seen as a little fuzzy? Maybe?)

(b) Prohibiting consumers access to the internet for any reason with the exception of the doing so to prevent violation of international law or for not receiving the monetary amount specified in the contract

Given the restrictions in Clause a, wouldn't you need to include "national law" in this Clause as well? Because - from a plain text reading of this - if I was using the internet to violate the national laws of Calladan, this proposal would make it illegal for them to stop me doing that. Wouldn't it?

That's really my only concern

Oops. I just realized that. I'll change that right away.

[ABC]

Seeing that there are no more suggestions, I'm going to go ahead an submit this proposal.

[Araraukar]

OOC: If you haven't submitted yet...

#2. Prohibits an ISP from:
(a) Blocking/censoring any internet content that is allowed by national and international law with international law taking precedence over national law"

You define "legal" and yet have that. Just replace that with "legal".

(b) Prohibiting consumers access to the internet for any reason with the exception of the doing so to prevent violation of international law or national law (with international law taking precedence over national law) or for not receiving the monetary amount specified in the contract

Is the double prohibiting really necessary? The ISP would more likely block access via their own network, as they can't really prohibit people from accessing the internet via some other ISP or a free connection.

(c) Giving significantly less bandwidth then they say the give to their consumers, to the point where the difference in the real bandwidth and the advertised bandwidth noticeably affects the speed at which a consumer can access the internet

"Providing" would sound more professional than "giving". Also, an RL example: My Internet connection works at about half of that of the contract I've made with my ISP, because it's a landline and this building was built in the 1950's. A faster connection is not possible without moving to wireless connections. The competing ISPs can't offer even as fast a connection as my current ones, because my current one owns the infrastructure in this city and restricts the connections of the others to a certain degree. (My contract comes with other perks which alone are worth what I pay for the "missing" bandwidth.)

I would suggest an addition of something like "unless it happens due to circumstances they're not responsible for". That would also help in situations where the physical network (even wireless connection needs the physical network to be operational) is not in their control and something happens to it, like a power outage somewhere. Also, ISPs shouldn't be punished for the Internet breaking down during natural disasters or wars.

(b) Place sensors with the capability to measure an ISP's bandwidth to make sure they give as much or about as much bandwidth as they say they do

Again, "provide".

(b) Require ISP's to pay all affected customers a percentage, specified by the ISP Regulatory Committee, of their net profit from those consumers as a penalty for not abiding by these terms

You have two subclauses marked with a B. Also, like I said above, it's unfair to punish ISPs for things that they didn't intentionally do or had no control over. Additionally, wireless connections' speeds generally depend on how many people are using the same link tower's services. In a mass event like a sporting event, there may simply be tens of thousands of users in a small area so that they overload the services so that everyone's connection slows to a crawl. That, again, is not the ISP's fault.