NationStates Jolt Archive

Con-sponsored by: SuozziLand
Internet Standardization Act

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Strong

NOTING the increased penetration of high speed Internet across the span of civilization as a whole;

FURTHER NOTING the growing importance reliable high speed Internet access has upon all aspects of society and the changes it has and continues to have are one of the major forces in human history;

ALARMED at the continual lack of high speed Internet, even within a nation, for various areas and both the short and long term impact in disparity this will have on various groups;

WORRYING about the long-range impact such disparity will create in the future;

FURTHER NOTING the Nuclear Proliferation of many World Assembly Member Nations as well as Non-Member Nations;

WORRYING that a nuclear detonation above any World Assembly Member Nation could send out an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) that could destroy or severely damage communications between members of the World Assembly;

FURTHER NOTING that such a device need to be deonated on a member's territory, but merely near it to have an effect;

EMPHASIZING the importance of World Assembly Member-Nations, humanitarian NGOs and others to communicate;

DECLARES the following to be the policy of the World Assembly:

1. The World Assembly shall set up a High Speed Internet Committee (HSIC) to require that the World Assembly Member Nations:
i. Have a reliable minimum upload and download speed of 100 Megabits per second (Mbps);
ii. Have such available Internet technology available to all areas of a country for use in business, non-profit, residential and government facilities;
iii. Have Internet systems that are immune to electromagnetic pulses (EMP);
iv. Not to throttle, or artificially limit transfer speed, except where multiple pricing schemes are available;
v. Make the minimum speed affordable to all segments of society;

2. The HSIC may raise the speed of high speed Internet minimums (set in section 1, point i) if new faster, reliable, tested methods become available;

3. The HSIC shall be responsible for advising in negotiations between many of the World’s Corporations and the various World Assembly Member Governments on the construction and costs of such systems;

4. Member nations may exercise any bidding process they desire in the construction of such an Internet system;

5. Any such system shall be compatible with the complete network of the World Assembly set forth by standards of the HSIC;

6. If an area is unable to be connected because of geographic impossibilities due to current technology, the HSIC may make an exemption for section 1, point iii until such time as the technology becomes available.

This is not the same as my previous proposal located here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=553678). To emphasize this point, once this passes, with or without modification, I shall deal with other aspects of the previous proposal.

It is completely different proposal (so mods please do not combine because it will just cause confusion)

If you're saying you want to connect the world with the net then I'm nearly in, but what about prevention of censorship?

i.Have a reliable minimum upload speed of 220 Mbps and 450 Mbps
First, which do we have to have? Second, Is that just at the capitol, or do we have to do that for anyone with Internet connectivity? And if that's for everywhere, who exactly will be paying for that? ADSL maxes out at 24 Mbps, if I remember correctly. Are we putting in fiber to every home in the country? Can fiber even do 220 Mbps? Does speed even matter that much over about 1 Mbps?

I agree that access should be made available wherever possible. But for informational access as a primary concern. Not everyone needs to stream HD video for three different computers simultaneously. Perhaps an initiative to get 56k dialup available for free or cheap. 56k is all you need to get text and HTML pages with reasonable speed.

This is the kind of proposal that has the unfortunate quality of bringing out my deep, deep, deeply repressed conservatism. A committee, to give everyone high speed internet? Please.

Call us when you've come up with a piece of potential international law.

-- Samantha Benson

First, which do we have to have?I would presume that one of those is upload speed and the other's download speed.

This is the kind of proposal that has the unfortunate quality of bringing out my deep, deep, deeply repressed conservatism. A committee, to give everyone high speed internet? Please.

Call us when you've come up with a piece of potential international law.

-- Samantha Benson

Ditto.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

EDIT: And what's your planned category and strength?

If you're saying you want to connect the world with the net then I'm nearly in, but what about prevention of censorship?All in due time. First this, then either that or something dealing with intelecutal property.
First, which do we have to have? Second, Is that just at the capitol, or do we have to do that for anyone with Internet connectivity? And if that's for everywhere, who exactly will be paying for that? ADSL maxes out at 24 Mbps, if I remember correctly. Are we putting in fiber to every home in the country? Can fiber even do 220 Mbps? Does speed even matter that much over about 1 Mbps?Everywhere. And yes it does matter. IRL I have 5mbits and with new media content that's coming out, ie streaming widescreen fullscreen movies, it's too slow. Installation would be required everywhere.

Fiberoptics currently are the only medium available, however, the future might not hold that and therefore we did not want this proposal to be tied to that.
I agree that access should be made available wherever possible. But for informational access as a primary concern. Not everyone needs to stream HD video for three different computers simultaneously. Perhaps an initiative to get 56k dialup available for free or cheap. 56k is all you need to get text and HTML pages with reasonable speed.56k is, to put it mildly, a peice of **** for what is needed today. We expect within the next couple years sites to be housing 3D images and such. Even in places like the US where 1/2 the population connected still uses 56k, industry is ignoring them and looking at a minimum .75Mbit download connection for pretty much anything, and it'll only grow. Fiberoptic connection would also level the playing field between the elite and poor, city and rural, etc. Anything less will not.
This is the kind of proposal that has the unfortunate quality of bringing out my deep, deep, deeply repressed conservatism. A committee, to give everyone high speed internet? Please.

Call us when you've come up with a piece of potential international law.

-- Samantha Benson
Ditto.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

EDIT: And what's your planned category and strength?
The Dominion of The Popotan is not quite sure what you're implying here...

Anyway as for category/strength...i don't know.

I attempted to suggest Advancement of Industry, Tort Reform, but that was shot down. Not sure what section and strength. Suggestion for this would be appreciated.

The Dominion of The Popotan is not quite sure what you're implying here...I'm not implying anything, I'm saying that I agree with Ms Benson here. The World Assembly is not here to give everyone broadband internet.

Anyway as for category/strength...i don't know.

I attempted to suggest Advancement of Industry, Tort Reform, but that was shot down. Not sure what section and strength. Suggestion for this would be appreciated.

I honestly doubt that there is an appropriate category for this idea.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I'm not implying anything, I'm saying that I agree with Ms Benson here. The World Assembly is not here to give everyone broadband internet.I could say the same about many other things being proposed, including what is currently up for vote


On further review, we think "Social Justice" could be appropriate. Strength significant or strong.

I could say the same about many other things being proposed, including what is currently up for voteWell duh, it's a textbook NatSov argument. I didn't become the frakking "Don" of the National Sovereignty Organization for nothing you know.

On further review, we think "Social Justice" could be appropriate. Strength significant or strong.

OK, then explain how it will "reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare."

Furthermore, what about past tech nations like Cobdenia whose "internet" is literally a series of tubes.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[OOC: This seems to be too closely tied to the RL...]

IC:
Unfortunately, this resolution would do nothing to assist the nation of Subistratica, as much of what this resolution seeks to accomplish has long been surpassed by our current technologies.

This resolution asks for the technically impossible. The current maximum sustainable broadband speed, even over prohibitively expensive fiber optic lines, is around 100mbps. Resolutions which are impossible to comply with bring the entire international legal order into disrepute, and the Holy Empire of Bakamyht would vigorously oppose any vote on this proposal.

Signed,

Markus Berens
Foreign Minister

So... switching it to the technically possible would make the resolution passable, I agree.

As far as fiber optics are concerned do the research...EMPs cannot damage them. As far as the expenses are concerned, this proposal is so open to letting governments negotiating their own deals with corporations that you could effectively negotiate a deal in which your government provides the land and the corporations front the cost. This deal is as expensive as your government is good at negotiating. Whatever your government negotiates is your business.

Whatever equipment you attach to the fiber optics is your business, the World Assembly should only be responsible for the communication lines.

Just remember. Without the fiber optics, if you were to go to war, one nuclear detonation over your country could effectively knock out your communications systems. How could you command your military without any communications??? How could you seek the help of your allies without communications??? How could you mobilize a war machine??? You would effectively be a sitting duck.

*snip*
Everywhere. And yes it does matter. IRL I have 5mbits and with new media content that's coming out, ie streaming widescreen fullscreen movies, it's too slow. Installation would be required everywhere.

I will say it again: Not everyone needs access to streaming movies. Saying that the Internet is a human right is a stretch, but streaming videos? No. Especially not when the WA doesn't even mandate that all citizens have access to electricity, plumbing, or schooling. And do you have any idea how much laying fiber costs? Especially in a spread-out nation like Embolalia! Your proposal would probably cost us as much in initial expense as two years of our parks system!

Fiberoptics currently are the only medium available, however, the future might not hold that and therefore we did not want this proposal to be tied to that.
56k is, to put it mildly, a peice of **** for what is needed today. We expect within the next couple years sites to be housing 3D images and such. Even in places like the US where 1/2 the population connected still uses 56k, industry is ignoring them and looking at a minimum .75Mbit download connection for pretty much anything, and it'll only grow. Fiberoptic connection would also level the playing field between the elite and poor, city and rural, etc. Anything less will not.

My point exactly. Half of the US connects with 56k. And they're fine with it. I'm the only person on my road IRL with broadband. I get 1Mbps if I'm lucky. And my neighbors don't mind their 56k at all.

And I will state my objection yet again. Access to the Internet as a human right is a stretch. Access to 3D imaging, streaming video, and the like is just plain not. I can understand why you would want people to be able to access things like Wikipedia and Dictionary.com from their homes. But those don't require broadband access. Text and images. That's it.

So... switching it to the technically possible would make the resolution passable, I agree.
True

As far as fiber optics are concerned do the research...EMPs cannot damage them. As far as the expenses are concerned, this proposal is so open to letting governments negotiating their own deals with corporations that you could effectively negotiate a deal in which your government provides the land and the corporations front the cost. This deal is as expensive as your government is good at negotiating. Whatever your government negotiates is your business.
What telco would throw fiber across the countryside in exchange for... nothing. The resolution requires it to be affordable, so they won't be able to charge end users to make up for it. So who will they need to get money from in order to survive? That's right, the government. So sure, you could put the initial cost on the companies, but it would all come back to the government in the end.

Whatever equipment you attach to the fiber optics is your business, the World Assembly should only be responsible for the communication lines.

Just remember. Without the fiber optics, if you were to go to war, one nuclear detonation over your country could effectively knock out your communications systems. How could you command your military without any communications??? How could you seek the help of your allies without communications??? How could you mobilize a war machine??? You would effectively be a sitting duck.
If my government doesn't want to defend itself, can't it do that? And would are allies really not notice a nuke going off? Would they really not notice the lights on the communications board going red? Besides, unless all your equipment is perfectly shielded, it's going to go out anyway.

Furthermore, what about past tech nations like Cobdenia whose "internet" is literally a series of tubes.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative
There can be multiple forms of the word use of something. Whether such nations have an internet like that does not matter. They would also be required to have one like this.
[OOC: This seems to be too closely tied to the RL...]

IC:
Unfortunately, this resolution would do nothing to assist the nation of Subistratica, as much of what this resolution seeks to accomplish has long been surpassed by our current technologies.Then you have no reason to not support this. This won't harm your nation at all, and bring others closer to your level.
I will say it again: Not everyone needs access to streaming movies. Saying that the Internet is a human right is a stretch, but streaming videos? No. Especially not when the WA doesn't even mandate that all citizens have access to electricity, plumbing, or schooling. And do you have any idea how much laying fiber costs? Especially in a spread-out nation like Embolalia! Your proposal would probably cost us as much in initial expense as two years of our parks system!

My point exactly. Half of the US connects with 56k. And they're fine with it. I'm the only person on my road IRL with broadband. I get 1Mbps if I'm lucky. And my neighbors don't mind their 56k at all.

And I will state my objection yet again. Access to the Internet as a human right is a stretch. Access to 3D imaging, streaming video, and the like is just plain not. I can understand why you would want people to be able to access things like Wikipedia and Dictionary.com from their homes. But those don't require broadband access. Text and images. That's it.You are looking at things as though the world is static. Let me tell you some valuable information:

The world is not static.

Especially when it comes to technology. It is evolving so rapidly that sites like Wikipedia will be the execption. You can't FE, browse ebay with any ease on such a connection, and such a site becomes more graphic-intensive with every passing major upgrade.
What telco would throw fiber across the countryside in exchange for... nothing. The resolution requires it to be affordable, so they won't be able to charge end users to make up for it. So who will they need to get money from in order to survive? That's right, the government. So sure, you could put the initial cost on the companies, but it would all come back to the government in the end.Affordable means just that, ie that a low-income worker can afford to pay for it without a burden. Whether that's by government subsidizing everyone, just them, having an extremely low rate, having a sliding scale income rate, etc. is up to that nation.
If my government doesn't want to defend itself, can't it do that? And would are allies really not notice a nuke going off? Would they really not notice the lights on the communications board going red? Besides, unless all your equipment is perfectly shielded, it's going to go out anyway.This would also harm humanitarian NGOs and the like.


-----
Updated speed to make it more compliant with the minimum fiberoptic speed...though the previous one was technically possible. Also added a bit more info on social justice part and added the tenative category.

There can be multiple forms of the word use of something. Whether such nations have an internet like that does not matter. They would also be required to have one like this.They're in the frakking 1930s. How the hell do you expect them to build something like this?

Furthermore you ignored the most important question I asked.
OK, then explain how it will "reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare?"

The fact of the matter is the internet is not a necessity of life, you show me someone who thinks it is, and I'll show you someone who spends entirely too much time on-line.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Then you have no reason to not support this. This won't harm your nation at all, and bring others closer to your level.

Unfortunately, I don't think that internet access is something that I would support without gaining anything for myself.

Also, would it actually be able to help others? As Mr. Bob Flibble pointed out, there are nations out there whose technological levels are nowhere near the point where they'd even be able to understand the internet, and possibly others who have long surpassed the level of technology you're proposing.

On the outskirts of our continent, particularly in the northern Alai Mountains, reside nomadic peoples who are not even aware of what the internet is. These people have no electricity, no plumbing, no television. They are fiercely xenophobic, with fur trading being the only outside interaction they're willing to tolerate. A rough demographic census puts these nomads at only .1% of Travda's population, yet under this legislation our government would be responsible for providing them internet- which we assume would mean also having to provide them electricity in order to operate a computer which would use it.

That is ridiculous enough as is, but when one realizes there are nations whose entire populations live in such conditions, it becomes impossible to take this proposal seriously. We would find it amusing, but the knowledge that the author is actually serious about going through with it frightens us too much to laugh.

Vokhuz Kon
Travda WA Chief Delegate

Unfortunately, I don't think that internet access is something that I would support without gaining anything for myself.

Also, would it actually be able to help others? As Mr. Bob Flibble pointed out, there are nations out there whose technological levels are nowhere near the point where they'd even be able to understand the internet, and possibly others who have long surpassed the level of technology you're proposing.To those that are inferiror and part of the WA, we would bring them up to speed. To those who are surpassed, we ask only that you would comply with making your systems computable with those who have inferior technology.

In this way everyone benifits, even technologically advanced nations because of better communications and sharing of ideas and information, even if it would be through inferior methods.
On the outskirts of our continent, particularly in the northern Alai Mountains, reside nomadic peoples who are not even aware of what the internet is. These people have no electricity, no plumbing, no television. They are fiercely xenophobic, with fur trading being the only outside interaction they're willing to tolerate. A rough demographic census puts these nomads at only .1% of Travda's population, yet under this legislation our government would be responsible for providing them internet- which we assume would mean also having to provide them electricity in order to operate a computer which would use it.

That is ridiculous enough as is, but when one realizes there are nations whose entire populations live in such conditions, it becomes impossible to take this proposal seriously. We would find it amusing, but the knowledge that the author is actually serious about going through with it frightens us too much to laugh.

Vokhuz Kon
Travda WA Chief DelegateWe would not require the electricity if they would decide to opt out, however the government would still have to find a way if 1 member of the tribe wanted to use it, perhaps as a spokesperson for the tribe. Just because they are in such conditions is no exucse for not aiding them.

We would also consider an exception where it is deemed impossible to get access to do to geographic, stellar or dimensional barriers, decided by the HSIC.

I cannot support this as it is currently illegal in my nation to access any non-government site whether in nation or internationally. This would force me to allow my citizens to have access to foreign information which is unacceptable. Thank you

Jackspurt

no it would not it would merely make any connections to those sites be using the latest technology. It does not in any way affect any restrictions you place.

It does require that you do make your connections standard with the rest of the WA, yes, but you can limit the traffic to just you government for dealing with other members.

Added an exception for places where such installation could be considered impossible, to avoid any legal problems with countries unable to impliment it due to that. The exception is made only to EMP since non-EMP protected communication systems would not be limited by such barriers.

Anyone else have anything they think needs changing to make this pass before i post this?

Well, how about evening up the grammar, punctuation, and general presentation? Decide what kind of punctuation to end each clause and subclause with, and be consistent. Don't use commas after introductory verbs. Something cannot be 'because of x due to y': you need to separate out the two dependent variables. Don't hyphenate 'Member Nation'. Don't use excessive capitalisation: really only 'World Assembly' and the committee's name need be capitalised. Spell 'artificially' correctly. Specify what Mbps means. And so on, and so on, and so on.

And, wrong attitude. It's not what it needs to 'make [it] pass'; it's what it needs to be good law.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of UN Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Well other than some comments about initial speed, no everyone has just come to criticize and left.

Just posted after i got back from busy weekend. I edited for grammar.

Sorry...i missed this. I deeply apologize to the honored representative.
They're in the frakking 1930s. How the hell do you expect them to build something like this?See section 4.
Furthermore you ignored the most important question I asked.


The fact of the matter is the internet is not a necessity of life, you show me someone who thinks it is, and I'll show you someone who spends entirely too much time on-line.

Bob Flibble
WA RepresentativeOn a basic fundimetnal live or die level, no it's not. Neither are clothing, shelter, freedom, etc. Most countries consider stuff like them to be nessesities.

High-Speed Internet is because if you are not connected and connected with a high speed access it brings long-term economic, political and social inequality to the system. It sets up a system of haves and have-nots that has a potentially a far reaching effect not seen since the agricultural revolution of the neolithic period.

Jinnai

The Dominion of The Popotan

Sorry...i missed this. I deeply apologize to the honored representative.
See section 4.
On a basic fundimetnal live or die level, no it's not. Neither are clothing, shelter, freedom, etc. Most countries consider stuff like them to be nessesities.

High-Speed Internet is because if you are not connected and connected with a high speed access it brings long-term economic, political and social inequality to the system. It sets up a system of haves and have-nots that has a potentially a far reaching effect not seen since the agricultural revolution of the neolithic period.

Jinnai

The Dominion of The Popotan
Um... okay. Not sure Internet access causes the same effects as agricultural revolution, but whatever.

More to the point, the Past-Tech nations can bid all they want, the problem is there is nobody in 1930 who knows what a bit is, how you get 100,000,000 of them per second, or why exactly you'd want them. Nor is there anyone who could install any Internet cabling, since it'll be another 30 years before multiple computers are linked together, and another 30 before more than a select few people will be able to navigate the links. So unless you're going to mandate time travel, which would mean basically mandating a tech-wank, some nations won't be able to fit the proposal.

I think this could happen if you approached it from a different angle. Rather than "everyone must have this, even if nobody has it now" try, "If some of your nation has it, everyone must have it." Something like "MANDATES that nations in which high-speed Internet access is available must make said access available and affordable to the whole of the national citizenry." Well, maybe more eloquently stated, and more expanded, but something to that basic idea.

Sorry...i missed this. I deeply apologize to the honored representative.
See section 4.I can tell by your comments that you've never been to Cobdenia. To get there you have to pass through a time portal which converts any technology you have, to a 1930s equilivent. My laptop computer turned into a typewriter, my airship's autopilot turned into a blowup doll (http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/bak42/AirplaneMovieOttoPilotInflatable.jpg). You can't just take the needed technology there because it will change too.

Furthermore what about nations like Glog who are back in the stone age. While you may be able to give them high speed internet, they wouldn't know what to do with it (and please, no cracks about it being so easy a cave man can do it).

On a basic fundimetnal live or die level, no it's not. Neither are clothing, shelter, freedom, etc. Most countries consider stuff like them to be nessesities.You think clothing and shelter aren't nessesities? Fine, you go live naked on the streets for a month and then come back and say that.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

OOC:
Hey Flibb. Since the UN's name was changed on here. Does that mean that DEFCON is going to be WA DEFCON?

Is this really a drafting thread? Has the draft actually changed in the slightest since it was first posted?



Anyway, I'm still not fully comfortable with Social Justice.

This is an extremely bad idea Potopan. While the original proposal is well thought out, it makes certain assumptions about our world that are simply not true.

Lets take a look at this:

i. Have a reliable minimum upload and download speed of 100 Megabits per second (Mbps);

Upload and download of, what exactly? You have a pretty preamble, but your first active clause doesn't actually define what the upload and download speeds are FOR... that's a pretty serious flaw. Do you want 100 megabits per second for mail? Telephone access? World Assembly Legislation? It's not clear enough for me to even know you're talking about "the internet".

All you did was establish an upload and download speed. I'll assume we DO know what you're talking about here. Even ignoring the unreasonableness this presents to Glog(who is a caveman) or Cobdenia(Which is perpetually stuck in the 1930's), or even aliens that use telepathy for all communication, do you have any idea of the financial cost this presents to a nation that has no internet access(or even phone lines) to begin with?

There are some truly massive nations in the WA that would be required to spend a huge portion of their GDP this year on internet access for their nation, despite the fact that no one there owns computers.... and they don't have to for them to be in compliance with this resolution.

Despite it's flaws, Jinnai I suggest you do not fix them at all, and move on to more worthy legislation. You've got good ideas and you've got the drive. You're going to have to take some of the advice people give you into consideration though. You're also going to have to break out of your box and realize that the WA comprises many different nations that are alot different than your own.

OOC: And beyond that, I think that you personally are building WA legislation based on your own life. That's a bad idea, as something that guarantees your internet is a bit faster won't really fix that inequality you spoke of in your previous posts. It won't feed the billion hungry in the world. It won't free Aung San Suu Kyi. It won't stop violence. There's problems aplenty, and your small ones are not the most important ones. Step back, and see what kind of things the WA could really be doing. This is an exercise in making the world a better place for everybody, not just yourself.

OOC:
Hey Flibb. Since the UN's name was changed on here. Does that mean that DEFCON is going to be WA DEFCON?

OOC: How should I know? I'm not in charge of it.

Maybe a way of making this proposal a bit more pallatable to everyone would be to lose the emphasis on 'high-speed'. I'm sure we all agree spreading Internet access would be helpful, particularly in promoting distance learning and helping economic diversification, but providing nations where the vast majority of people don't even have a computer with a high-speed Internet link-up seems a bit unrealistic. You might also consider expanding mobile phone coverage: mobile phones are far more prevalent in developing nations.

Also, how do you propose the WA pay for all this?

-- Samantha Benson

Upload and download of, what exactly? You have a pretty preamble, but your first active clause doesn't actually define what the upload and download speeds are FOR... that's a pretty serious flaw. Do you want 100 megabits per second for mail? Telephone access? World Assembly Legislation? It's not clear enough for me to even know you're talking about "the internet".for everything, therefore it doesn't need a classification because if someone tries to skirt around it, they come back to the lack of anything mentioned specifically so they can't say "but email should be exempted here...."
All you did was establish an upload and download speed. I'll assume we DO know what you're talking about here. Even ignoring the unreasonableness this presents to Glog(who is a caveman) or Cobdenia(Which is perpetually stuck in the 1930's), or even aliens that use telepathy for all communication, do you have any idea of the financial cost this presents to a nation that has no internet access(or even phone lines) to begin with?
Ignorance is no excuse for keeping people from information & technology. Even for a race that communicates soley by telepathy, they have to have ways to store there information.

As for the price, that is why each country can negotiate it through private investments, cooperations, donations or taxation.
There are some truly massive nations in the WA that would be required to spend a huge portion of their GDP this year on internet access for their nation, despite the fact that no one there owns computers.... and they don't have to for them to be in compliance with this resolution.Again, keeping a population back is no excuse.
Despite it's flaws, Jinnai I suggest you do not fix them at all, and move on to more worthy legislation. You've got good ideas and you've got the drive. You're going to have to take some of the advice people give you into consideration though. You're also going to have to break out of your box and realize that the WA comprises many different nations that are alot different than your own.

OOC: And beyond that, I think that you personally are building WA legislation based on your own life. That's a bad idea, as something that guarantees your internet is a bit faster won't really fix that inequality you spoke of in your previous posts. It won't feed the billion hungry in the world. It won't free Aung San Suu Kyi. It won't stop violence. There's problems aplenty, and your small ones are not the most important ones. Step back, and see what kind of things the WA could really be doing. This is an exercise in making the world a better place for everybody, not just yourself.No, it won't, but that doesn't mean it's a valid excuse. Granting everyone a fair trial, which was passed, doesn't do any of that.

We do not believe people should be forced to use the technology on a personal level, but they should not be denied it because countries discriminate against them or corporations discriminate because they can't get enough profit.

In addition we also believe that WA and humanitarian NGOs needs to be able to adequately communicate in the event of any disaster, thus our requirement on EMP protected clause.

Maybe a way of making this proposal a bit more pallatable to everyone would be to lose the emphasis on 'high-speed'. I'm sure we all agree spreading Internet access would be helpful, particularly in promoting distance learning and helping economic diversification, but providing nations where the vast majority of people don't even have a computer with a high-speed Internet link-up seems a bit unrealistic. You might also consider expanding mobile phone coverage: mobile phones are far more prevalent in developing nations.

Also, how do you propose the WA pay for all this?

-- Samantha BensonHigh speed is essential...although technically it could be dropped i suppose as long as the EMP provision was kept...that would essentially amount to the same thing because fiberoptics are the only thing we know of to be able to last through an EMP (though theortetically future items could as well so it shouldn't have an effect on those nations). In a fantasy world, it might be possible...but again i want the minimum speed to prevent the discrimination that occurs either through government or corperations in they would lay out the lines, for social, racial, ethnic, class, economic reasons.

My point is, that city A should not be given better connections, to a minimum speed nessary for growing number of sites (which is no longer dial-up) just because of the reasons posted previously.

For Social Justice, Strong, you could justify a safety net for seniors (i.e. US Social Security), socialized medicine, or government supplied subsistence levels of nutritious food for all the poor in your nation. Given that most governments struggle to fund even one or two of these ... which should we give up to fund your massive internet access program?

Your proposal is entirely based around the needs and technologies of today, or even yesterday. In many NS nations, it's already tomorrow, or next week, or next century. Your viewpoint is far too narrow. This needs to be made much more generic.

My local governmental bodies are installing wireless broadband hotspots throughout the central business districts. It's not secure, it's not EMP proof, but it's relatively cheap and it's entirely democratic. Maybe you should try something a bit less ambitious. What's more, that could justifiably be listed as Furtherment of Democracy, which would resolve your category mismatch.