We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Phone Services Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Rutanian Democratic Forum
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: September 2592
Description[?]:
| RDF believes that subsidizing phone services cost have negative effects in our economy and society. We would like that telephone is free for everyone, but if not, then we do not support subsidizing cost for low- income families. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning phone services.
Old value:: The state subsidizes the phone service of low income families but does not regulate the rates providers can charge for phone service.
Current: The state regulates the rates providers can charge for phone service.
Proposed: There are no regulations on phone service.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:29:12, June 14, 2008 CET | From | Federal Rutanian Libertarian Union | To | Debating the Phone Services Act |
| Message | We agree with this change in policy. |
| Date | 18:22:32, June 14, 2008 CET | From | The National Party for the People | To | Debating the Phone Services Act |
| Message | How about regulations but no subsiziding? |
| Date | 19:14:44, June 14, 2008 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Phone Services Act |
| Message | This is a worse proposal than the current, existing, legislation. |
| Date | 00:06:42, June 15, 2008 CET | From | Rutanian Democratic Forum | To | Debating the Phone Services Act |
| Message | RDF definitively supports market regulations because we do not believe in effective self- regulation of market. But we are ready to make an exception in this case... |
| Date | 06:09:49, June 15, 2008 CET | From | Federal Rutanian Libertarian Union | To | Debating the Phone Services Act |
| Message | Where there are regulations - especially those on price - we don't see that as a competitive market at all. So either we subsidise or offer no regulations at all. |
| Date | 07:07:44, June 15, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Party | To | Debating the Phone Services Act |
| Message | We agree with the whole subsize or no regulation at all idea but we would have to support subsized service for low income people... |
| Date | 14:55:04, June 15, 2008 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Phone Services Act |
| Message | "RDF believes that subsidizing phone services cost have negative effects in our economy and society. We would like that telephone is free for everyone, but if not, then we do not support subsidizing cost for low- income families." How does a subsidised network have a negative effect on our society and economy, but a free network does not? What about the very poor or the less well off that cannot afford to be able to use the phone network as much as the wealthy? Telephones are vital for communication, for information about friends, families or jobs, so why should the poor be denied these basic rights? In a modern society equal access to such basic technologies as the telephone are vital if we are to fully integrate the individual into society and keep them linked in with the wider world around them. To take away even a subsidised telephone rate will simply plunge more of the poorest members of our society into relative poverty, not to mention leaving them feeling as marginalised and dislocated voices, standing merely on the fringes of society with nobody to support them or fight their cause. |
| Date | 15:00:43, June 15, 2008 CET | From | Rutanian Democratic Forum | To | Debating the Phone Services Act |
| Message | A free network enables a free access to comunication technology and freedom of such communication. In such a system, telephone companies must make profit through advertising or by some other means. In such system, there is no real phone companies, there are just phone technology providers and phone system maintenance companies. That is ok with RDF, because we support freedom of communication, and we believe that such companies can make profit through, for example, advertising. But, subsidizing cost for low- income families is a unnecessary intervention of state into the market. It is in the best interest of companies to make communication system available for all, therefore we prefer deregulation. We would rather choose completely free phone service, but if that's not possible, then deregulation. RDF will monitor our phone service system, because we truly support unlimited access to communication means in today's modern world. |
| Date | 06:08:13, June 16, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Party | To | Debating the Phone Services Act |
| Message | first of all having telephone communication is not a right or freedom...its an option/utility that people in our modern world most likely need. A competitive market will drastically lower prices and be better for the economy and with deregulation, the cost of the un-subsidized people wont be as high(the lost money will be gotten from someone)...with the regulation, we may increase government beuracracy and the un-subsidized people will have an increase in price of the service. We would have to support this bill, simply because we know prices will decrease for services. Telephone companies target working class people because its the majority of people here. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 448 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 74 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 77 |
| Random fact: Make sure your nation casts its nominations in Particracy's very own Security Council elections! For more information, see http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=8453 |
| Random quote: "The National Rifle Association says, 'Guns don't kill people; people kill people,' but I think the gun helps." - Eddie Izzard |