[DRAFT] Net Neutrality or Not?

[RantSpot]

Title: Net Neutrality or Not?

The Issue
[description] As @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have begun gobbling up content producers left and right, fears have grown of potential blocking and throttling of competing content providers. @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ flocked to a @@NAME@@ Communications Commission hearing to present their opinions.

[validity] Must not have banned the internet (41.3, 228.3, 269.4, 323.4, 335.2, 335.4, 437.4, 687.4, 711.3, etc) or computers (41.3, 228.2, 228.4, 317.3, 335.3, 539.4, etc). (281.1 should be modified; reference to "internet neutrality" is confusing, as the issue does not actually address net neutrality, but rather rural access etc)

The Debate

[option] "This is clearly anticompetitive vertical integration," expounds @@RANDOMNAME@@, founder of the startup NapSpaceFlix, wearing a T-shirt and jeans. "We don't let phone companies decide who we can call; why should it be different with ISPs? Without true net neutrality, we'll lose out on new innovative companies. We'd still be stuck with BrickAndMortarBuster's if their ISP parent could have shut down StreamSter." @@HE@@ drops a 2-foot stack of paper onto the ground. "And thousands of internet commenters agree with me."
[fallout] @@NAME@@'s internet infrastructure is deteriorating for all websites equally.

[option] "We built this series of tubes, and we should be able to monetize it however we damn well please," offers @@RANDOMNAME@@, CEO of @@INITIALS@@T&T, wearing a three piece suit. "We invest in our networks, so why can't we decide what can be transmitted over them or how fast sites can load? @@INITIALS@@T&T deserves freedom of speech just as much as any @@DEMONYM@@, and we deserve to be profitable just as much as a startup like Whoosawhatsits. Without these revenue streams, we can't invest in maintaining our networks and expanding rural internet access."
[fallout] Most @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ can only access one streaming video site on their internet connection: @@INITIALS@@T&T-Flix.

[option] "There's a compromise which should appease both parties," suggests @@RANDOMNAME@@, Chief Happiness Officer of internet giant Frugle. "Surely ISPs have a right to compensation, but they can't totally control all internet access. ISPs could be forced to offer high-speed access to sites who can pay a mutually-agreeable fee. That way, everybody wins!"
[fallout] Starting a new website costs hundreds of millions of @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ in ISP payments alone.

[option] "These ISPs are on the right track," whispers @@RANDOMNAME@@, a shadowy intelligence agent, backstage after the hearing. "Except we should be the ones filtering and throttling traffic. Sites which support our government can be sped up, neutral news sites can be slowed, and opposition sites can just... disappear."
[fallout] @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ are scratching their heads as their favorite gossip sites now redirect to "I Love @@LEADER@@.CO.@@INITIALS@@".

Potentially relevant issues:

• #37 "Traffic Cops Needed on Information Superhighway?": Government surveillance is not related to net neutrality. Same with #317 "Big Brother Is Watching You Surf", 328.1, 437.2, etc
• #281 "Free Internet For @@NAME@@?": This USES the term "internet neutrality"... incorrectly. It's about internet access, not content access on an internet connection. They are two very different, mostly unrelated things.
• Many issues (cited above) which ban the internet or computers/electronics/technology

I did not see any net neutrality issue being developed (though one person asked about it in a years-old thread), so I thought I'd jump in and do it myself.

[Fauxia]

I think this issues is already covered (yes I did see your post about potential ones)

[Candlewhisper Archive]

It's a unique premise, I think, but it's a little too tech-headed.

While we often get challenged on left/right bias in issue writing, one of the bigger biases that exists (perhaps understandably) is a bias towards geeky issues to do with the internet and computers. Given that this is a browser based game with a largely young male demographic, that's unsurprising, but I have to say that an issue like this one basically appeals to the sort of person who builds their own computer.

Which, y'know, isn't a hard thing to do, it's just a thing that only a minority of the population do.

Mostly, I think an issue that is about ISPs buying up content producers is too jargon-laden and tech-heavy to have that general appeal the game is aiming for.

[Australian rePublic]

Not many people from outside the USA would have any idea what @@NAMEINITIALS@@T&T is

[RantSpot]

I thought I would revisit this effort. As far as I can tell, no net neutrality issue has been introduced in the last two years. In the meantime, this issue has heated up politically around the world. I thought I'd try a heavily-edited (and retitled) v2. I renamed the national ISP, and de-jargoned/de-teched a bit more.

If this is definitely a no go, let me know and I can let it go

Title: Slowing the Speed of Surfing

The Issue
[description] As @@NAME@@'s biggest internet service provider has bought a movie studio, a newspaper, and a website featuring pictures of kittens, fears have grown that competing websites might be slowed down or blocked. @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ flocked to a @@NAME@@ Communications Commission hearing to present their opinions.

[validity] Must not have banned the internet (41.3, 228.3, 269.4, 323.4, 335.2, 335.4, 437.4, 687.4, 711.3, etc) or computers (41.3, 228.2, 228.4, 317.3, 335.3, 539.4, etc). Can't have State Media. Possibly can't have Socialism (not sure). (281.1 should be modified; reference to "internet neutrality" is confusing, as the issue does not actually address net neutrality, but rather rural access etc)

The Debate

[option] "This is bogus, man," expounds @@RANDOMNAME@@, founder of the startup NapSpaceFlix, wearing a T-shirt and jeans. "We don't let phone companies decide who we can call; why should it be different on the internet? Without true net neutrality, we'll lose out on new innovative companies. Imagine a world where those MovieBuster stores could have shut us down. That would have been so lame." @@HE@@ drops a 2-foot stack of paper onto the ground. "And thousands of internet people agree with me."
[fallout] @@NAME@@'s internet infrastructure is deteriorating for all websites equally.

[option] "We built this series of tubes, and we should be able to profit from it," offers @@RANDOMNAME@@, CEO of @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Telecom, wearing a three piece suit. "We own our wires, so why can't we decide how they're used or how fast sites can load? We deserve freedom of speech just as much as any @@DEMONYM@@. Besides, without these streaming revenue streams, we can't invest in maintaining our networks, so every @@DEMONYM@@ would suffer."
[fallout] Most @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ can only access one streaming video site: @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Telecom-Flix.

[option] "I have an idea for a compromise," suggests @@RANDOMNAME@@, Chief Happiness Officer of internet giant Frugle. "Surely these telecoms have a right to make money, but they can't totally control the internet. Maybe the telecom companies could speed up competing websites for a reasonable fee. That way, everybody wins!"
[fallout] Starting a new website in @@NAME@@ costs hundreds of millions of @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ in payoffs alone.

[option] "These executives are on the right track," whispers @@RANDOMNAME@@, a shadowy intelligence agent, backstage after the hearing. "Except we should be the ones filtering and throttling traffic. Sites we like can be sped up, others can be slowed, and troublemakers can simply... disappear."
[fallout] @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ are scratching their heads as their favorite gossip sites now redirect to "I Love @@LEADER@@.@@INITIALS@@".