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: Free Internet for Kirlawa
Details
Submitted by[?]: People's Action Party
Status[?]: defeated
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: October 3869
Description[?]:
| We believe that the Internet should be available to the citizens of Kirlawa. Because of the dangers of the Internet, it would the government's best interest to regulate the Internet, while allowing Kirlawans to communicate with each other at ease The voting process will begin on either December 3868 or later. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on internet service providers (ISPs).
Old value:: Private companies provide internet service throughout the nation, without government interference.
Current: The state owns and operates a national internet service provider, alongside private ISPs.
Proposed: The government controls and provides internet service throughout the nation. Private ISPs are banned.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 05:00:22, June 28, 2015 CET | From | Kirlawan People's Justice Party | To | Debating the Free Internet for Kirlawa |
| Message | Strongly opposed. An _intentional_ private monopoly? Seriously? :( That's needlessly and pointlessly cruel. It's the worst out of all of the options available on this issue (well, aside from the "internet is banned" joke option of course). We aren't "free-marketeers" ... yet, even they would prefer the current law. We feel that only speakers aligned with the one particular corporation which would be scheduled to gouge the huge monopolistic profits out of the people, would prefer the proposed change. Monopolies are bad. Inherently. But if it _has_ to be a monopoly, then let it at least be government-run, we feel; because at least that way, we aren't getting extorted by (massive!) private profiteering going on also. KPJP's own preferred position on this issue is "There is a national state-owned internet service provider, but small private ISPs are allowed, which are heavily restricted to ensure that they stay small." This way, there's a standard public service available for everyone, which would [be what would _really_] accomplish the goals set forth in the description ... while at the same time also permitting small hobbyist private alternative services, for those who seek something different for whatever reason, and additionally functioning as a safety-valve just in case problems arise with the public service. Everybody wins. Second-best in our opinion would be "The state owns and operates a national internet service provider, alongside private ISPs." This resembles the immediately above; the only difference being slightly greater vulnerability to private profiteering, but overall it's still fine. Third-best in our opinion would be "The government controls and provides internet service throughout the nation. Private ISPs are banned." Here, we sadly and unwisely lose the safety-valve, but at least the public service continues; it's just operating without an, ahem, "net" in this case. As we said before, monopolies are bad in and of themselves; but if it _has_ to be a monopoly, then at least let it be a _public_ monopoly, which thus vastly reduces the risk of price-gouging. Fourth-best in our opinion, is the current law, "Private companies provide internet service throughout the nation, without government interference", where we're deprived of the availability of the public service ... but at least the private entities are set in _competition_ against each other, which would (ideally) help to keep prices low and affordable. People dissatisfied with one, could (ideally) dump them and turn to some competitor for an improvement. Realistically, the private outfits are likely to either band together and form a profiteering cartel (in other words, to spontaneously coalesce into a de-facto monopoly) ... and/or, to end up simply resembling each other; "yes I know company A is terrible, but don't bother switching to company B or C or D, they're just as bad". And the worst (again ignoring the joke entry), is the change proposed here, "There is a single privately-owned internet service provider, whose monopoly is guaranteed by law." That worst-case scenario which the previous option runs the risk of deteriorating into ... actually gets _intentionally_ implemented here, and even enforced. Opening the door to heartless price-gouging on a massive scale, because there's nowhere that anyone can turn, regardless of how upset we are over poor service and high prices. The one corporation selected for the monopoly collects gargantuan profits, and the people are trapped and extorted. :( Everybody loses -- except for that one corporation. The people would be placed at its mercy. And corporations have no mercy. :( |
| Date | 17:00:19, July 01, 2015 CET | From | Kirlawan People's Justice Party | To | Debating the Free Internet for Kirlawa |
| Message | Thank you for changing the bill :) It's still not ideal in our view, but it's much better than before. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 213 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 263 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 241 |
| Random fact: Players who deliberately attempt to present a misleading picture of the nation's current RP laws will be subject to sanction. |
| Random quote: "The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves." - Henry Kissinger |