[ABANDONED] Internet Act - Someone Else Can Take This

here · by **Llorens** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:46 am

by **Jarish Inyo** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:53 am

Opposed. Internet companies should be pay to increase their infrastructure. Not the government. A government should not have to pay for another government's infrastructure either. Nor should the government tell a business what it can change for its products. Not that the WA can force a business to comply with its so called 'commands'.

here · by **Llorens** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 1:01 am

Jarish Inyo wrote:Opposed. Internet companies should be pay to increase their infrastructure. Not the government. Nor should the government tell a business what it can change for its products.

They can charge their customers, but no more than five percent of a household's income (I'm flexible on changing this number). Access to the Internet is not merely a matter of the free market. In our modern society, it has essentially become a right of the citizens to access its wealth of information. The developing nations and poor people of the world should not be shut out and put at an even further disadvantage by not having access to this invaluable resource - that ignores the reality of society that many are inherently disadvantaged in life and that they would have further inequality of opportunity if they were either completely out of pocket to pay for the Internet or instead have no access to it at all.

by **Jarish Inyo** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 1:09 am

The internet is not a right. No more then any modern conveniences. The internet is a business has to pay maintenance, personnel and infrastructure. A 5% of a household income is not going to cover any of that. If you can't afford a luxury , then you shouldn't have it. That simple. Governments shouldn't have to subsidize the cost because someone can't afford something. Nor should they pay for another nation's infrastructure. Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for either?

How is this an international issue?

by **Uan aa Boa** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 2:14 am

Revolutionary greetings to the Comrade Ambassador from Llorens!

Please don't mind the Ambassador from Jarish Inyo. No matter what the topic at hand, he promptly intervenes to assert that his nation will neither cooperate with any other nor authorise public spending of any kind.

As the internet is, in a sense, a single thing does it need to be defined? Possibly, I'm unsure about this.

I think that to clarify your proposal, clearer definitions and minimum standards will be required. By what measure will we know which nations have "adequate" and "excess" funds? The wealthiest of nations nonetheless have commitments and priorities. If a nation declares that it doesn't have adequate funds but it has just increased its spending of healthcare and is planning a cut in taxes how will we know whether that's acceptable? There will need to be a way of establishing how far up or down their shopping list the requirements of this Act will go.

Similarly, if a nation with excess funds donates a single currency unit to support internet provision in poorer nations, will that meet the requirement? How much do governments have to do domestically? Is it to be measured by how much they spend or what the results are in terms of citizen access?

In short, comrade, specifics.

I would be inclined to class this proposal under social justice as the main thrust seems to be social and economic inclusion of the poor.

by **Araraukar** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:11 am

Uan aa Boa wrote:As the internet is, in a sense, a single thing does it need to be defined? Possibly, I'm unsure about this.

OOC: Yes, otherwise it's a RL reference. An international computer network =/= the Internet.

I think that to clarify your proposal, clearer definitions and minimum standards will be required.

Agreed. "Data network" needs to be defined, especially as it's used in the requirement clause. I'd also move any definitions to come after the "hereby", so that they're part of the actual informative bit of the proposal. And same for "excess funds".

I would be inclined to class this proposal under social justice as the main thrust seems to be social and economic inclusion of the poor.

Forcing the ISPs themselves to treat their customers differently based on their household income doesn't sound like more spending from the state on welfare.

Llorens wrote:Orders Internet providers to not charge more than five percent of a household's income to access their Internet data networks.

This seems to violate the idea that all inhabitants are equal, regardless of their wealth, since you would in essence possibly require the ISPs (which also need to be defined, btw) to charge less from some people and more from others. How's that fair by any possible scale of justice? Additionally "their"? ISPs usually, as the name suggests, only provide access to the internet, rather than actually owning it.

Lastly, as access to the net isn't a right, strike out human rights rightaway from the list of choices. If you wanted this to belong into educational, you'd have to make it increase educational spending. If you wanted this to belong into free press, you'd have to make it increase national spending on free press (which always makes me wonder why the AoE is under Educational).

here · by **Llorens** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:34 am

Araraukar wrote:
Uan aa Boa wrote:I think that to clarify your proposal, clearer definitions and minimum standards will be required.

Agreed. "Data network" needs to be defined, especially as it's used in the requirement clause. I'd also move any definitions to come after the "hereby", so that they're part of the actual informative bit of the proposal. And same for "excess funds".

OK, so this might be a bit of a long process to flesh this bill out. Therefore, we should probably make a list of all the terms in need of clarification (heck, I'll even make a space for it in the opening post).

Araraukar wrote:
Llorens wrote:Orders Internet providers to not charge more than five percent of a household's income to access their Internet data networks.

This seems to violate the idea that all inhabitants are equal, regardless of their wealth, since you would in essence possibly require the ISPs (which also need to be defined, btw) to charge less from some people and more from others. How's that fair by any possible scale of justice? Additionally "their"? ISPs usually, as the name suggests, only provide access to the internet, rather than actually owning it.

The point of charging less from the poor is so that it is more affordable for those who cannot pay as much. That is practically the point of the bill. This rule has to remain in some form, even if largely changed because there needs to be some specification as to how the Internet is not only provided but made more affordable. Personally, I would think it would go without saying that at least those below a certain wage would receive free internet access, but the bill has to be flexible to some degree for it to be passed by a majority of WA nations. This sort of 'flat rate' is set as a ceiling on the price that ISPs can charge their customers. If an ISP wants to charge all their customers the same rate, they can so long as their poorest customer pays no more than five percent of their wage.

Araraukar wrote:Lastly, as access to the net isn't a right, strike out human rights rightaway from the list of choices. If you wanted this to belong into educational, you'd have to make it increase educational spending. If you wanted this to belong into free press, you'd have to make it increase national spending on free press (which always makes me wonder why the AoE is under Educational).

That leaves me with Social Justice, which is probably fitting in my opinion (the point of the bill is to help the disadvantaged who don't have Internet access). Would this fall under Mild, Significant or Strong?

by **Araraukar** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:42 am

Llorens wrote:OK, so this might be a bit of a long process to flesh this bill out.

OOC: Oh yes, proposal writing always is.

Therefore, we should probably make a list of all the terms in need of clarification (heck, I'll even make a space for it in the opening post).

You mean you should.

The point of charging less from the poor is so that it is more affordable for those who cannot pay as much. That is practically the point of the bill.

I get that, but forcing the ISPs to do that isn't fair. And doesn't raise government spending on welfare.

Personally, I would think it would go without saying that at least those below a certain wage would receive free internet access

Does that work in Real Life where you're from?

This sort of 'flat rate' is set as a ceiling on the price that ISPs can charge their customers. If an ISP wants to charge all their customers the same rate, they can so long as their poorest customer pays no more than five percent of their wage.

Wage =/= household income. And what about if they earn a salary instead? Also, you don't give ISPs any leeway of what kind of internet access they need to provide. At least here the more you pay the faster connection you tend to get (depending on the area where you live, of course).

Would this fall under Mild, Significant or Strong?

Depends entirely on how this is worded.

here · by **Llorens** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:56 am

Araraukar wrote:I get that, but forcing the ISPs to do that isn't fair. And doesn't raise government spending on welfare.

Why isn't it fair? And obviously, it doesn't increase welfare spending, they are paying the ISPs, not the government.

Does that work in Real Life where you're from?

You think the Liberal Party of Australia gives the slightest shit about the poor? HA!

Wage =/= household income. And what about if they earn a salary instead? Also, you don't give ISPs any leeway of what kind of internet access they need to provide. At least here the more you pay the faster connection you tend to get (depending on the area where you live, of course).

I thought about that (i.e. different Internet plans). Do you have any suggestions as to how we could work around that?

Depends entirely on how this is worded.

Fair enough.

by **Essu Beti** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:41 am

Iksana raises his hand. "I represent a developing nation, and we do not have the infrastructure needed for an internet. If this resolution passes, would it require other nations help establish that as well? What about computers at all, since those tend to be a lot more expensive than our citizens can afford? Anyone trying to establish a computer library so people can access the internet would have a substantial initial expense, not to mention the cost of electicity to run them and the importation of technical support personnel."

"It's a lot of money, so I can only assume that this assistance wouldn't come in the form of a blank check, but of a loan. Under what terms? And what's to stop the nations helping us from putting monitoring equipment on the stuff they loan us?"

by **The Greater Siriusian Domain** » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:07 am

Essu Beti wrote:Iksana raises his hand. "I represent a developing nation, and we do not have the infrastructure needed for an internet. If this resolution passes, would it require other nations help establish that as well? What about computers at all, since those tend to be a lot more expensive than our citizens can afford? Anyone trying to establish a computer library so people can access the internet would have a substantial initial expense, not to mention the cost of electicity to run them and the importation of technical support personnel."

"It's a lot of money, so I can only assume that this assistance wouldn't come in the form of a blank check, but of a loan. Under what terms? And what's to stop the nations helping us from putting monitoring equipment on the stuff they loan us?"

Teran Saber: "The Greater Siriusian Domain is able to produce electronics on the cheap. Even if this doesn't pass, we would be willing to assist your nation at our loss."

by **Jarish Inyo** » Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:11 pm

1) How is this an international issue?
2) Why should nations subsidize the internet industry to provide a luxury to those that can't afford it?
3) Why should nations pay to build the need infrastructure for the internet in other nations?
4) How does this not contradict GAR 68? Especially where it says

ALLOWS national governments to regulate commerce within their jurisdiction

by **Capercom** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:44 am

I fear there are too many capitalistic keep-the-government-out-of business minded nations that would oppose this bill. I've spoken to a few leaders of nations in my region and we all agree that while the idea of "Internet for All" is something the WA needs to look into, forcing Internet Service Providers in each nation to cap what they can charge goes against the very core of many nation's ideals.

Orders Internet Service Providers to not charge more than five percent of a household's income to access the Internet.

I also feel like you'd gain a little more support if you changed "Requires" to "Encourages" as there are WA member nations who like to spend as little government funds as possible in anything related to the WA.

Requires member states with excess funds to aid in the establishment of said data networks for citizens in member states with insufficient funds to provide them;

by **Thyerata** » Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:06 am

Forgive me if I'm behind the times, but isn't this basically duplicating Open Internet Order?

by **Araraukar** » Wed Jun 21, 2017 12:47 pm

Thyerata wrote:Forgive me if I'm behind the times, but isn't this basically duplicating Open Internet Order?

OOC: That was repealed.

here · by **Llorens** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:47 am

Sorry, I was very busy this week, so I kinda forgot about this. I feel like we need to keep some form of rule to ensure that the internet is not only accessible, but affordable, so it shouldn't just be 'encouraged'. Please feel free to throw proposals for different ideas on this or write a new clause. While I may be the author, I merely want to be a mediator in making a bill that satisfies the aim of providing accessible and affordable internet for all people.

by **Araraukar** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:33 am

Llorens wrote:Please feel free to throw proposals for different ideas on this or write a new clause.

OOC: That's really your job as the author.

While I may be the author, I merely want to be a mediator in making a bill that satisfies the aim of providing accessible and affordable internet for all people.

And if others don't agree that this is necessary/plausible, they (we) have no obligation to help you do that. Resolution writing is a long process, and to begin with, I suggest you do some research online about RL laws concerning the Internet, Internet access and ISP data plans in different countries. I'd suggest picking a couple of western countries, a Nordic country or two, a couple of mid-development nations (like India or China), Australia (marvelous example for the distances involved and sparsity of population) and a few "3rd world" countries that may or may not have even a working phone network. That should give you a fairly good idea of how wildly differing nations you need to cater to with this legislation.

here · by **Llorens** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:43 am

Araraukar wrote:OOC: That's really your job as the author.

Well, not necessarily. I merely proposed the idea and want more ideas from the community to improve it.

In saying that, I have decided to make some sweeping changes to the proposal so that it actually has specific guidelines. Open to criticism as usual.

by **Capercom** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:14 am

If I properly remember what this Proposal once was, the changes you made are big! I have 6 papers being shoved in my face currently, while I'm trying to shove my face with these pancakes, but I do feel this is something myself and the nation of Capercom can stand behind. I will provide more commentary once I get these aides out of my face before I have even finished my breakfast!

EDIT: Commentary below

Now that I've finished my breakfast and can read your Proposal, albeit with a syrup stain on it, sorry, I would like to commend you on your idea. Something like this would truly provide internet for all and effectively make the internet become a utility that's necessary for all beings. That is something Capercom firmly stands behind.

Questions for this Proposal:

Where did you come up with 40,000 SMU? I see that my nation (per NSEconomy site) has 23,000ish GDP Per Capita. Is 40,000 SMU per capita something that nations can realistically obtain? (forgive me for my ignorance on the GDP of other nations, I truly just don't know)

Mandates member states with a GDP per capita exceeding 40,000 SMU to fund the construction and maintenance of data networks to increase Internet access for all its citizens;

What about the nations who have a GDP between 40,001 - 79,999 SMU?

(d) Member states with a GDP per capita between 30,000 and 40,000 SMU to receive 25% of their total data network project cost;

(e) Member states with a GDP per capita exceeding 80,000 SMU

I'm also slightly confused by the wording in (e). If a nation has 80k+SMU, the IFA will charge them money to offset the costs of the assistance given to the lesser economically well-off nations? If so, that's logical but I do question whether that breaks any rules of the WA or bucks the usual trend for funding WA Committees/Authority groups.

(e) Member states with a GDP per capita exceeding 80,000 SMU to be charged an amount as a ratio to their GDP per capita so that the total funds received are equivalent to the total funds required;

The below statements are the only points in the Proposal that I could foresee some pushback on. Nations that are heavily anti-sharing and nations that are heavily pro-business without government interference will argue that this Proposal would go against their nation's standards. But I don't think this is too intrusive nor will it negatively impact any government.

(e) Member states with a GDP per capita exceeding 80,000 SMU to be charged an amount as a ratio to their GDP per capita so that the total funds received are equivalent to the total funds required;

Orders Internet Service Providers to provide free Internet access to citizens with an income lower than 30,000 Standard Monetary Units.

All in all, even with the questions raised, the people of Capercom would call for my removal of office (even though they don't have the power to do so) if I did not show support for this Proposal.

by **Thyerata** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:31 am

Mandates member states with a GDP per capita exceeding 40,000 SMU to fund the construction and maintenance of data networks to increase Internet access for all its citizens

Sounds like borderline optionality here, which is illegal, because it seems to exclude any nation with a GDP below that number from the mandatory requirement in that clause. Resolutions must apply to all nations, irrespective of their circumstances

here · by **Llorens** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:58 am

Thyerata wrote:
Mandates member states with a GDP per capita exceeding 40,000 SMU to fund the construction and maintenance of data networks to increase Internet access for all its citizens

Sounds like borderline optionality here, which is illegal, because it seems to exclude any nation with a GDP below that number from the mandatory requirement in that clause. Resolutions must apply to all nations, irrespective of their circumstances

Those beneath 40,000 SMU are liable to the clauses outlining the guidelines of the Internet Funding Authority, whereby most will still be granted a certain percentage of their data network construction and maintenance project cost, depending on how far down they are. The bill itself covers all member states, so it isn't as if any are left out entirely.

Capercom wrote:Where did you come up with 40,000 SMU? I see that my nation (per NSEconomy site) has 23,000ish GDP Per Capita. Is 40,000 SMU per capita something that nations can realistically obtain? (forgive me for my ignorance on the GDP of other nations, I truly just don't know). What about the nations who have a GDP between 40,001 - 79,999 SMU?

Just a note before I start, you can find your GDP and GDP per capita on your Economy page. Back to your question, I basically did some averaging out to get all these numbers. 40,000 SMU is the Average Income of citizens in nations in the Top 75% (i.e. top of the bottom quarter); this results in the bottom quarter of member states being eligible for some project subsidisation. 80,000 SMU is the opposite, being the Average Income of citizens in nations in the Top 25% (i.e. bottom of the top quarter); this results in the top quarter of member states being required to fund the projects of some poorer nations, relative to the level that they exceed 80,000 SMU. In addition to these, the free internet access for those with a wage below 25,000 SMU was determined by looking at the average Average Income of Poor; this reflects the average income of the bottom 10% that cannot to pay for internet access.

Capercom wrote:I'm also slightly confused by the wording in (e). If a nation has 80k+SMU, the IFA will charge them money to offset the costs of the assistance given to the lesser economically well-off nations? If so, that's logical but I do question whether that breaks any rules of the WA or bucks the usual trend for funding WA Committees/Authority groups.

Honestly, I don't have a good education in WA history, so I couldn't tell you whether it strays from any trends, but I don't see how redistributing wealth to provide an essential service would be breaking a WA proposal guideline, in my opinion.

by **Capercom** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:30 am

Llorens wrote:
Thyerata wrote:Sounds like borderline optionality here, which is illegal, because it seems to exclude any nation with a GDP below that number from the mandatory requirement in that clause. Resolutions must apply to all nations, irrespective of their circumstances

Those beneath 40,000 SMU are liable to the clauses outlining the guidelines of the Internet Funding Authority, whereby most will still be granted a certain percentage of their data network construction and maintenance project cost, depending on how far down they are. The bill itself covers all member states, so it isn't as if any are left out entirely.

Capercom wrote:Where did you come up with 40,000 SMU? I see that my nation (per NSEconomy site) has 23,000ish GDP Per Capita. Is 40,000 SMU per capita something that nations can realistically obtain? (forgive me for my ignorance on the GDP of other nations, I truly just don't know). What about the nations who have a GDP between 40,001 - 79,999 SMU?

Just a note before I start, you can find your GDP and GDP per capita on your Economy page. Back to your question, I basically did some averaging out to get all these numbers. 40,000 SMU is the Average Income of citizens in nations in the Top 75% (i.e. top of the bottom quarter); this results in the bottom quarter of member states being eligible for some project subsidisation. 80,000 SMU is the opposite, being the Average Income of citizens in nations in the Top 25% (i.e. bottom of the top quarter); this results in the top quarter of member states being required to fund the projects of some poorer nations, relative to the level that they exceed 80,000 SMU. In addition to these, the free internet access for those with a wage below 25,000 SMU was determined by looking at the average Average Income of Poor; this reflects the average income of the bottom 10% that cannot to pay for internet access.

Capercom wrote:I'm also slightly confused by the wording in (e). If a nation has 80k+SMU, the IFA will charge them money to offset the costs of the assistance given to the lesser economically well-off nations? If so, that's logical but I do question whether that breaks any rules of the WA or bucks the usual trend for funding WA Committees/Authority groups.

Honestly, I don't have a good education in WA history, so I couldn't tell you whether it strays from any trends, but I don't see how redistributing wealth to provide an essential service would be breaking a WA proposal guideline, in my opinion.

That all makes sense! Support still stands!

by **Thyerata** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:52 am

Llorens wrote:
Thyerata wrote:Sounds like borderline optionality here, which is illegal, because it seems to exclude any nation with a GDP below that number from the mandatory requirement in that clause. Resolutions must apply to all nations, irrespective of their circumstances

Those beneath 40,000 SMU are liable to the clauses outlining the guidelines of the Internet Funding Authority, whereby most will still be granted a certain percentage of their data network construction and maintenance project cost, depending on how far down they are. The bill itself covers all member states, so it isn't as if any are left out entirely.

Capercom wrote:Where did you come up with 40,000 SMU? I see that my nation (per NSEconomy site) has 23,000ish GDP Per Capita. Is 40,000 SMU per capita something that nations can realistically obtain? (forgive me for my ignorance on the GDP of other nations, I truly just don't know). What about the nations who have a GDP between 40,001 - 79,999 SMU?

Just a note before I start, you can find your GDP and GDP per capita on your Economy page. Back to your question, I basically did some averaging out to get all these numbers. 40,000 SMU is the Average Income of citizens in nations in the Top 75% (i.e. top of the bottom quarter); this results in the bottom quarter of member states being eligible for some project subsidisation. 80,000 SMU is the opposite, being the Average Income of citizens in nations in the Top 25% (i.e. bottom of the top quarter); this results in the top quarter of member states being required to fund the projects of some poorer nations, relative to the level that they exceed 80,000 SMU. In addition to these, the free internet access for those with a wage below 25,000 SMU was determined by looking at the average Average Income of Poor; this reflects the average income of the bottom 10% that cannot to pay for internet access.

Capercom wrote:I'm also slightly confused by the wording in (e). If a nation has 80k+SMU, the IFA will charge them money to offset the costs of the assistance given to the lesser economically well-off nations? If so, that's logical but I do question whether that breaks any rules of the WA or bucks the usual trend for funding WA Committees/Authority groups.

Honestly, I don't have a good education in WA history, so I couldn't tell you whether it strays from any trends, but I don't see how redistributing wealth to provide an essential service would be breaking a WA proposal guideline, in my opinion.

I'm not convinced because I *think* that for the resolution to be legal, every member state must be bound by every clause. I feel the need for a legality challenge...

by **Altanni** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:59 am

ooc// GAR#2 says that all resolutions must apply equally to all member states. So yeah, your plan here contradicts that. Someone tried to do something similar with power grids and it was ruled illegal for the same reason.

by **The Sheika** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:06 am

Thyerata wrote:I'm not convinced because I *think* that for the resolution to be legal, every member state must be bound by every clause. I feel the need for a legality challenge...

I'll second for a legality a challenge. If I recall in recent weeks we had another proposal attempt to set a "price floor" using different monetary units. First, USD (which for all intents and purposes in the WA is fictional currency) then a different currency from a nation on NS that is not part of the WA. When the price floor was dropped, the idea of setting different standard for different development levels was brought up, which in the end was deemed illegal for being in violation of Resolution 2, Article 8; "Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State", with a further note from one of the members of the WA GenSec, "You may not apply different standards to developed and developing nations."
Link provided for reference:
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=31828240#p31828240

[ABANDONED] Internet Act - Someone Else Can Take This

[ABANDONED] Internet Act - Someone Else Can Take This

Who is online