Osiris Fraternal Order

CATEGORY: Social Justice | STRENGTH: Mild | PROPOSED BY: Dranconae

The General Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING that the Internet is a means of communication, collaboration, expression, and business for many;

BELIEVING that access to all lawful content on the Internet is fundamental to both freedom of expression and the growth of small businesses;

DISTURBED that WA nations or Internet Service Providers could arbitrarily restrict access to lawful content or the Internet itself;

HEREBY:

DEFINES

• “Internet” as a system of interconnected networks of digital devices used to transfer data between said devices and their networks,
• “Internet Service Provider” as an entity that provides the ability to access the Internet to businesses, residents, or other customers such as shops, schools, or libraries, excluding entities who only offer the ability to access the Internet as an additional benefit and not as a primary source of Internet access,
• “Bandwidth throttling” as the intentional act of decreasing the speed of a connection below the maximum possible connection speed,

PROHIBITS WA Nations from blocking access to or bandwidth throttling the Internet or specific lawful content, directly or indirectly, including content that is critical of the government or of other government interests,

PROHIBITS Internet Service Providers from blocking access to or bandwidth throttling the Internet or specific lawful content, unless allowed by Clause Four,

ALLOWS blocking access or bandwidth throttling by Internet Service Providers to

• Allow all digital devices to receive access to the Internet,
• Allow all digital devices access to necessary services in extreme situations, such as natural disasters, or
• As a result of a published scale of prices for connection speeds and data caps disclosed to all customers of the Internet Service Provider.

Vote Nay, Aye, or Abstain.

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.

Vote: Abstain

Nay

Nay

Internet Neutrality Act was passed 13,631 votes to 5,017.