NationStates

IC: Recognizing that members were pushing for this act to be updated, I took the liberty of writing up my edits to GA#75. While I now see that others have put forth their own edits, I hope the body will review my edits in conjunction with others'.

OOC: I'm new to WA and NationStates in general, but was excited to see all the interesting forum posts on here and so was itching to participate! Please correct any mistakes I might make in forum etiquette as well as in lawmaking.

International Regulations on Radio Signals Act

Category: Regulation --- Area of Effect: Safety

The General Assembly,

Defining “low-powered” radio signals as those with a power of less than 100 watts, thereby reaching an effective service range of at most three and a half miles within national borders, and further defining any radio signal that is not “low-powered” to be “high-powered”,

Understanding the risks to health, trade, and international cooperation posed by high-powered radio signals of various frequencies and makes,

Respecting the rights of members to deploy low and high-powered radio signals for any number of purposes, including but not limited to trade, communication, defense, and entertainment,

Hereby,

1. Permits the usage of all low-powered radio signals so long as they do not interfere with the operation of high-powered radio signals,

2. Establishes the General Assembly Radio Commission to review all uses of high-powered radio signals, at the point of the manufacture of the device if possible, and to set detailed standards solely to ensure these uses pose no credible threat to:
• Life
• National Infrastructure
• The quality of other radio signals internationally,
Except in the case of self-defense or where the member has made a formal declaration of war against another,

3. Tasks the above commission to set specific frequencies, not previously in wide usage and obtained with the consent of any previous users without infringing upon the quality or airing of previously established emergency frequencies, solely for the purpose of international emergency communications between all nations (should they choose to use them),

4. Allows members to task the above commission to further review and rule on any radio device they believe has fallen in violation of clauses 1-3 of this act, and

5. Bans the above commission from setting any regulations on content, ownership, management, power, or frequency allocation of radio devices, excepting only those regulations that would ensure such devices are in compliance with clauses 1-3 of this act.

Lecosia wrote:

IC: Recognizing that members were pushing for this act to be updated, I took the liberty of writing up my edits to GA#75. While I now see that others have put forth their own edits, I hope the body will review my edits in conjunction with others'.

OOC: I'm new to WA and NationStates in general, but was excited to see all the interesting forum posts on here and so was itching to participate! Please correct any mistakes I might make in forum etiquette as well as in lawmaking.

International Regulations on Radio Signals Act

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING the risks to health and trade posed by powerful radio signals of various frequencies,

RECOGNIZING the continual need for legislation to ensure radio systems will not cause international interference,

ACKNOWLEDGING the fears laid out in clause 2 of GA#280 and the subsequent decision of the general assembly to repeal GA#75,

Hereby

ALLOWS unregulated use of low power radio devices, so long as such use does not interfere with other radio signals,

ESTABLISHES the International Radio Commission to review current uses of high-powered radio devices and set detailed standards to ensure they pose no credible threat to human life or the quality of other such devices internationally, to similarly review and set detailed standards for future devices at the point of manufacture, and to set specific frequencies solely for emergency calls,

FORBIDS the International Radio Commission from setting content standards, station ownership standards, and frequency allocations apart from emergency services,

REAFIRMS that the standards set by the International Radio Commission must be followed by all members but

ALLOWS members to create additional radio services and regulations within the standards set by the International Radio Commission.

It seems to me that this proposal borrows too heavily from this proposal. Unless you receive approval that this is not plagiarism, I would not submit.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Lecosia wrote:

IC: Recognizing that members were pushing for this act to be updated, I took the liberty of writing up my edits to GA#75. While I now see that others have put forth their own edits, I hope the body will review my edits in conjunction with others'.

OOC: I'm new to WA and NationStates in general, but was excited to see all the interesting forum posts on here and so was itching to participate! Please correct any mistakes I might make in forum etiquette as well as in lawmaking.

International Regulations on Radio Signals Act

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING the risks to health and trade posed by powerful radio signals of various frequencies,

RECOGNIZING the continual need for legislation to ensure radio systems will not cause international interference,

ACKNOWLEDGING the fears laid out in clause 2 of GA#280 and the subsequent decision of the general assembly to repeal GA#75,

Hereby

ALLOWS unregulated use of low power radio devices, so long as such use does not interfere with other radio signals,

ESTABLISHES the International Radio Commission to review current uses of high-powered radio devices and set detailed standards to ensure they pose no credible threat to human life or the quality of other such devices internationally, to similarly review and set detailed standards for future devices at the point of manufacture, and to set specific frequencies solely for emergency calls,

FORBIDS the International Radio Commission from setting content standards, station ownership standards, and frequency allocations apart from emergency services,

REAFIRMS that the standards set by the International Radio Commission must be followed by all members but

ALLOWS members to create additional radio services and regulations within the standards set by the International Radio Commission.

It seems to me that this proposal borrows too heavily from this proposal. Unless you receive approval that this is not plagiarism, I would not submit.

I actually hadn't seen that proposal draft until I finished writing this one. Both proposals heavily incorporate language from the original struck-down GA#75 law but are different in terms of scope of regulation-- theirs requires inspections for low-powered radios, gives greater room for frequency regulation, and sets requirements for what "radio services" must include. Mine does not. Perhaps Linux and the X could submit their proposal first and if it gets struck down I submit mine?

OOC: Using language from a source that is not you is Plagiarism unless you get permission. Plagiarism comes with some significant penalties here. Best to use your own words.

Thanks, good to know, I’ll edit. Just to confirm, this is true even for amending laws that have been struck down?

Lecosia wrote:Thanks, good to know, I’ll edit. Just to confirm, this is true even for amending laws that have been struck down?

(OOC: Replacing laws does still count as plagiarism, yes. There are no amendments as such, though you can repeal and then replace a piece of legislation.)

OOC: (Also just realized that the original law was written by the same author as the revised draft proposal anyway, so that’s totally my mistake regardless.)

OOC: Hey all, updated the original post with a second draft--I don't think it steals any language from the other act and I tried to emphasize and better articulate the differences but let me know any problems you see.

Lecosia wrote:OOC: Hey all, updated the original post with a second draft--I don't think it steals any language from the other act and I tried to emphasize and better articulate the differences but let me know any problems you see.

(OOC: The proposal looks better, insofar as it doesn’t have any copied clauses as far as I can see, but the blue highlight makes it rather difficult to make out the words. I strongly suggest removing it.)

OOC: Backgrounds removed.

Lecosia wrote:Bans the above commission from setting regulations on content, ownership, management, and frequency allocations of radio devices, apart from those frequencies designated solely for international emergency services

Frequency allocations must be coördinated internationally, unless you have a scheme to force emissions to respect international borders.

Linux and the X wrote:

Lecosia wrote:Bans the above commission from setting regulations on content, ownership, management, and frequency allocations of radio devices, apart from those frequencies designated solely for international emergency services

Frequency allocations must be coördinated internationally, unless you have a scheme to force emissions to respect international borders.

How come? You mean because frequencies might accidentally reach nations they weren't intended for? I wasn't planning on regulating that aspect, figuring that member nations could sort that out amongst themselves once the frequencies are made non-damaging. Perhaps I should say "frequency allocations of radio devices, apart from those frequencies designated solely for international emergency services and those that may pose threat to life, national infrastructure, and the quality of other radio devices internationally"?

OOC: Local radio stations tend to work with line-of-sight, not by bouncing radio waves off of the ionosphere. Also how far the waves travel is not very complicated math and radio transmitter power can be adjusted. It'd only be very close to the border that you might get issues, but in such a case it wouldn't be difficult for the two nations to agree on using different frequencies for local radio stations.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Local radio stations tend to work with line-of-sight, not by bouncing radio waves off of the ionosphere. Also how far the waves travel is not very complicated math and radio transmitter power can be adjusted. It'd only be very close to the border that you might get issues, but in such a case it wouldn't be difficult for the two nations to agree on using different frequencies for local radio stations.

OOC: Unless one of them was deliberately messing things up for the other, for political reasons (such as making it harder for its own people to tune in to foreign broadcasts that might contradict their 'official' news...), of course...

Bears Armed wrote:OOC: Unless one of them was deliberately messing things up for the other, for political reasons (such as making it harder for its own people to tune in to foreign broadcasts that might contradict their 'official' news...), of course...

OOC: You mean like aggressive propaganda during war?

Bears Armed wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Local radio stations tend to work with line-of-sight, not by bouncing radio waves off of the ionosphere. Also how far the waves travel is not very complicated math and radio transmitter power can be adjusted. It'd only be very close to the border that you might get issues, but in such a case it wouldn't be difficult for the two nations to agree on using different frequencies for local radio stations.

OOC: Unless one of them was deliberately messing things up for the other, for political reasons (such as making it harder for its own people to tune in to foreign broadcasts that might contradict their 'official' news...), of course...

OOC: I believe this specific technique would fall under the realm of a credible threat to "the quality of other such devices internationally" and thus would be banned under clause 2 of the act? (Or clause 1 if they're low-powered)

Araraukar wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:OOC: Unless one of them was deliberately messing things up for the other, for political reasons (such as making it harder for its own people to tune in to foreign broadcasts that might contradict their 'official' news...), of course...

OOC: You mean like aggressive propaganda during war?

OOC: that, and repressive regimes in 'cold war' or 'North Korea' situations (possibly faced with deliberate propaganda channels, possibly just with ones intended for viewers in their countries of origin that just happen to show how much better things are abroad...)

Lecosia wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:OOC: Unless one of them was deliberately messing things up for the other, for political reasons (such as making it harder for its own people to tune in to foreign broadcasts that might contradict their 'official' news...), of course...

OOC: I believe this specific technique would fall under the realm of a credible threat to "the quality of other such devices internationally" and thus would be banned under clause 2 of the act? (Or clause 1 if they're low-powered)

OOC: but it isn't interfering with the quality of the actual "devices", just with the quality of the signals that can be received from them.

"I have submitted a new draft of the proposal based on members' critiques, specifically as regards frequency allocation and intentional signal disruption. I have also clarified the process for GA Radio Commission regulatory review. Members may peruse the new draft and suggest changes."

OOC: Not sure of the status of the other replacement act by Linux and the X right now, but if there are no further critiques on my version and no progress with the other act within 48 hours, I’ll submit.

OOC: Another bump--waiting on submitting the proposal for another 24 hours (given the conditions stated above) because I'm not sure if enough people saw this with so much going on. Also edited so ppl in the General Assembly forum know it's a last call.

OOC: Wait, you're actually working on this? I thought you had abandoned it with no draft visible in the first post. Leave your current draft visible. People likely haven't commented on it because, like me, they're used to "no draft visible = not actively worked on".

EDIT: Please don't use the "last call" thing to get comments, it's annoying. Just unspoiler the current draft and you'll get comments.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Wait, you're actually working on this? I thought you had abandoned it with no draft visible in the first post. Leave your current draft visible. People likely haven't commented on it because, like me, they're used to "no draft visible = not actively worked on".

EDIT: Please don't use the "last call" thing to get comments, it's annoying. Just unspoiler the current draft and you'll get comments.

OOC: Gotcha, sorry, still getting used to protocol here. As requested, I've unspoiled the third draft and changed the title.

Lecosia wrote:Acknowledging the fears laid out in clause 2 of GA#280 and the subsequent decision of the General Assembly to repeal the regulations on radio use articulated in GA#75,

OOC: If you're going to refer to the resolutions, use their full names. But you don't really need to refer to them at all. Like, you don't need to rely on justifications from previous resolutions, even the repeal, if your own proposal is good enough.

Permits the usage of all low-powered radio devices so long as they do not interfere with the operation of high-powered radio devices or their signals,

You don't define what counts as low-powered or high-powered, but if using it in everyday language (not necessarily scientific language for radio equipment, mind you) sense, high-powered devices won't be bothered by low-powered, but rather the other way round.

Establishes the General Assembly Radio Commission

Given that the things you give the committee to do, are mostly national ones, I don't understand why you're not making the nations themselves do the things, rather than the WA. The WA's purpose is to make laws for the member states, who then carry out the actions required by the laws.

to review all current uses (as of the enactment of this law) and future uses (at the point of manufacture and subsequently by public demand) of high-powered radio devices,

...what kind of crystal ball do you think the committee would have to be able to see the future uses?

and to set detailed standards solely to ensure those devices pose no credible threat to:
1. Life
2. National Infrastructure
3. The quality of other such devices or their signals internationally,

I don't quite understand how one radio set could pose a credible threat to another radio set's quality. Isn't that manufacturer's problem? Their signals, yeah, but the actual device? Doesn't make sense grammatically. Not entirely certain how they could cause issues with infrastructure either, but there probably is some Future Tech nation with radio weaponry or something...

Speaking of which, are you intentionally banning the use of radio interference during warfare to, say, disrupt the radio communication between enemy forces, or radar jamming? Because if yes, you'll have a much harder job to pass this. People tend to like their weapons in NS.

Tasks the above commission to set specific frequencies (not currently in use by members) solely for international emergency services, and

The "not currently in use by members" would perhaps better do as "not currently in such use", since it's going to be hard to find a frequency that wasn't used somewhere for something. Also, exactly how many frequencies are you going to need for the emergencies? Note that there aren't any "international emergency services", so you might rethink the wording.

Bans the above commission from setting regulations on content, ownership, management, and frequency allocation of radio devices (excepting those frequencies designated solely for international emergency services and those that may be found to pose unique threat to life, national infrastructure, and the quality of other radio devices or their signals internationally).

Don't use round brackets when you're saying something important. If you numbered your clauses, you could simply refer to the earlier clause without needing to list the whole lot of the things again. Though I have to ask how a certain frequency could be an issue, and whether you're trying to keep radio devices from being able to pick up the transmissions in the international emergency channel, in which case I wonder why you'd bother to set it up if it can't be listened to.

What category were you intending to put this in?

OOC
Radar systems use radio waves. As written, this proposal would effectively rule out jamming enemies' radar systems during wartime... and the use of missiles that detect hostile radar systems (by using "radio devices") so that they can home in on & destroy those.
In fact, shouldn't there be a general exemption for when the nations involved are in a state of declared war against each other so that they can also try to jam each other's radio transmissions (military communications, propaganda broadcasts, etc...) then as well?

Araraukar wrote:

Lecosia wrote:Acknowledging the fears laid out in clause 2 of GA#280 and the subsequent decision of the General Assembly to repeal the regulations on radio use articulated in GA#75,

OOC: If you're going to refer to the resolutions, use their full names. But you don't really need to refer to them at all. Like, you don't need to rely on justifications from previous resolutions, even the repeal, if your own proposal is good enough.

OOC: Okay, I'll delete that section, I don't think it actually adds anything to the content of the Act anyway.

Permits the usage of all low-powered radio devices so long as they do not interfere with the operation of high-powered radio devices or their signals,

You don't define what counts as low-powered or high-powered, but if using it in everyday language (not necessarily scientific language for radio equipment, mind you) sense, high-powered devices won't be bothered by low-powered, but rather the other way round.

The original act didn't define it either, I sort of assumed it would just be non-commercial LPFM radio like in the US. But low-powered radio under that definition would have the capacity to interfere with signals from high-powered radios in the local area, even if low-powered signals can't really reach beyond national or local borders. I'll revise by clarifying the definitions at the beginning of the act.

Establishes the General Assembly Radio Commission

Given that the things you give the committee to do, are mostly national ones, I don't understand why you're not making the nations themselves do the things, rather than the WA. The WA's purpose is to make laws for the member states, who then carry out the actions required by the laws.

Well I wanted to ensure that nations complied with the three standards listed in that clause, but I wouldn't know what specific regulations to put in place to ensure that (specific frequency allocation, power standards, etc) without utilizing a commission to set more specific regulations based on their review of all nations' high-powered radio signals.

to review all current uses (as of the enactment of this law) and future uses (at the point of manufacture and subsequently by public demand) of high-powered radio devices,

...what kind of crystal ball do you think the committee would have to be able to see the future uses?

By "future uses (at the point of manufacture and subsequently by public demand)", I meant that all nations, as soon as they create new high-powered radio devices, must be subject to inspection by the GARC, and further inspections will only be made through complaints to the GARC. I'll try to re-word that so it's less confusing.

and to set detailed standards solely to ensure those devices pose no credible threat to:
1. Life
2. National Infrastructure
3. The quality of other such devices or their signals internationally,

I don't quite understand how one radio set could pose a credible threat to another radio set's quality. Isn't that manufacturer's problem? Their signals, yeah, but the actual device? Doesn't make sense grammatically. Not entirely certain how they could cause issues with infrastructure either, but there probably is some Future Tech nation with radio weaponry or something...

Speaking of which, are you intentionally banning the use of radio interference during warfare to, say, disrupt the radio communication between enemy forces, or radar jamming? Because if yes, you'll have a much harder job to pass this. People tend to like their weapons in NS.

This is a good point. I was definitely thinking of Future Tech nations with radio weaponry systems and missile programs like Bears mentioned. But maybe the "devices" part is already covered by "National Infrastructure" in general...

That being said, my intention was to ban the use of radio interference during peacetime specifically, so I'll edit the act to ensure there are wartime exceptions to the radio interference point. I'll have to be careful though, because I don't want to allow signal interruption and then have the radio attacks unwittingly harm bystander nations.

Tasks the above commission to set specific frequencies (not currently in use by members) solely for international emergency services, and

The "not currently in use by members" would perhaps better do as "not currently in such use", since it's going to be hard to find a frequency that wasn't used somewhere for something. Also, exactly how many frequencies are you going to need for the emergencies? Note that there aren't any "international emergency services", so you might rethink the wording.

Okay, I'll delete "international" and try to rework the wording for "not currently in use by members". The problem is I don't really want to bump people off their frequencies when I designate the emergency services. I figured that since frequency is on a sliding scale, we could probably find one that wasn't in use...

Bans the above commission from setting regulations on content, ownership, management, and frequency allocation of radio devices (excepting those frequencies designated solely for international emergency services and those that may be found to pose unique threat to life, national infrastructure, and the quality of other radio devices or their signals internationally).

Don't use round brackets when you're saying something important. If you numbered your clauses, you could simply refer to the earlier clause without needing to list the whole lot of the things again. Though I have to ask how a certain frequency could be an issue, and whether you're trying to keep radio devices from being able to pick up the transmissions in the international emergency channel, in which case I wonder why you'd bother to set it up if it can't be listened to.

What category were you intending to put this in?

Okay, I'll delete the round brackets and number the clauses.

What I was envisioning was if there's an international emergency situation in member states, they could radio in at a particular frequency. (There's no ban on them picking up the emergency services frequency, just a ban on using the frequency for other purposes--I'll try to make that clearer.) But maybe that's too complicated of a thing to centralize... I might end up deleting all the emergency service clauses if this next version causes more problems that way.

Not sure about category, the original law was placed under "Free Trade" which seemed not quite right to me. I was thinking more along the lines of either really mild International Security or significant Safety Regulation?