Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
Regional InformationWelcome to Osiris! Please endorse the Pharaoh: Altino and the Council of Guardians for the security of Osiris. Your next step should be registering a forum account and applying for citizenship. You should also check out our regional chat and say hello! Check out our regional guide for information on regional government and a listing of government officers. Citizens, be sure to get involved in the Council of Scribes to discuss and vote on legislation and other important regional matters! |
| [Passed] Internet Neutrality Act | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Apr 3 2017, 01:31 AM (94 Views) | |
| The Republic of Highlock | Apr 3 2017, 01:31 AM Post #1 |
|
CATEGORY: Social Justice | STRENGTH: Mild | PROPOSED BY: Dranconae
Vote Nay, Aye, or Abstain. Edited by The Republic of Highlock, Apr 3 2017, 01:34 AM.
|
| Offline Profile | Quote ▲ |
| The Republic of Highlock | Apr 3 2017, 01:33 AM Post #2 |
|
VOTE: Aye |
| Offline Profile | Quote ▲ |
| Auralia | Apr 3 2017, 08:28 AM Post #3 |
|
Nay. 1) The definition of "Internet" is too broad, including computer networks other than the public Internet. For example, there's no reason why a network neutrality mandate should apply to networks reserved for use by a single telecom provider for the purposes of providing IP-based services such as IPTV. 2) The definition of "bandwidth throttling" is vague. There are multiple candidates for the "maximum possible connection speed" for a particular link, and it's not really clear which one this resolution is referring to. Is it the last mile link speed, which is usually what is advertised to customers? Is it the total bandwidth of the core routers divided by the number of subscribers? Is it the lowest-bandwidth link for any particular customer for any particular connection? This definition significantly affects the mandates of the resolution. Is oversubscribing the last mile "throttling" and therefore prohibited? Is prioritization of certain applications "throttling" and therefore prohibited? Who knows -- the resolution doesn't clarify! 3) The prohibition on member states blocking content is meaningless, since it only applies to "lawful content". Member states can simply declare any content they wish to block illegal. Existing World Assembly resolutions do a far better job of protecting free speech than this one. 4) The prohibition on blocking content is absolute and does not permit ISPs to block content on behalf of their customers, which can be useful in certain contexts. For example, a school or library may want ISPs to block access to pornography on their connection; this resolution would prevent them from doing so. 5) The prohibition on throttling connections includes certain exceptions, but not enough to cover all forms of reasonable network management. For example, the resolution does not seem to permit ISPs to throttle high consumption users when the network is congested in order to improve performance for others; they would only be permitted to do so once the network is no longer accessible for certain users. In addition, the resolution does not seem to permit prioritization of certain kinds of traffic that requires lower latency over other traffic that can tolerate higher latency, such as video streaming vs. peer-to-peer file sharing. |
| Offline Profile | Quote ▲ |
| Ravilan | Apr 3 2017, 08:57 AM Post #4 |
![]()
|
Vote: Abstain |
| Offline Profile | Quote ▲ |
| Dr_PelIcaN | Apr 3 2017, 10:29 AM Post #5 |
|
Nay |
| Offline Profile | Quote ▲ |
| Adytus | Apr 3 2017, 12:11 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Baron of Buhen
|
Nay |
| Offline Profile | Quote ▲ |
| Auralia | Apr 8 2017, 08:38 AM Post #7 |
|
Internet Neutrality Act was passed 13,631 votes to 5,017. |
| Offline Profile | Quote ▲ |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Shrine of Amun · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic | ⌚ 3:46 AM Jul 11 |

