B999 – Net Neutrality Bill 2016 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
B999 – Net Neutrality Bill 2016, TSR Socialist Party

Net Neutrality Bill 2016
A Bill to ensure all data on the internet is treated equally.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1: Definitions
(1) 'ISP' or 'Internet Service Provider' is an organisation who provides a connection to the internet.
(2) 'False Packets' are packets of data which are sent through a connection with no destination.
(3) 'Mbps' is the unit which measures connection speed.
(4) 'OFCOM' is the regulating body for telecommunications companies.
(5) 'Deep Packet Inspection' is probing data packets and reading what they contain.
(6) 'UK-Facing Revenue' is a company's income gained from UK based customers.
(7) An 'area' is defined as a ward used in local elections.
(8) A 'rural area' is a ward with a population density of 500 per kilometre squared or less.

2: Restrictions
(1) ISP's must not employ the use of False Packets to slow down a line connection.
(2) The line speed to each consumer must be within 2Mbps of the average for that area. OFCOM shall perform a random spot check on each ISP every quarter to check this.
(3) Deep Packet Inspection shall not be used by any individual or organisation under any circumstances.

3: Exceptions
(1) In rural areas, the line speed must be within 7Mbps of the local average.
(2) There will be different local average line speeds for each type of technology available (i.e. fibre optic connections).

4: Data review
(1) All data regarding specifics of customer access must be retained, but not viewed by ISPs.
(1) (i) OFCOM inspections shall be additionally required to ensure that sufficient protection mechanisms regarding non-viewing of data are inplace.
(2) These data may only be released upon request by a branch of the state, including, but not limited to, the Crown Prosecution Service, the police service, and members of Her Majesty's Government (when acting in their official capacity).
(3) This section does not affect the power of ISPs to retain and view overall (i.e. non-site specific) usage data

5: Penalties
(1) If OFCOM finds a breach of section 2 above, it shall bring the matter with the relevant ISP before a court. If the accusation is found to be made out on the balance of probabilities, an award not exceeding 2% of the organisation's UK-facing revenue shall be made against the ISP in question. Subsequent offences should see an award of roughly 1.8 times that of the previous offence.
(2) If an organisation or individual is found to be using Deep Packet Inspection, a fine of at least £75000 will be imposed.
(3) If liability is found under this Act, said liability may be extended to other members of the organisation's corporate family.

6: Commencement, short title and extent
(1) This Act may be cited as The Net Neutrality Act 2016.
(2) This Act shall extend to the United Kingdom.
(3) This Act shall come into force on the 1st of January 2017.


Notes
Spoiler:
Show
At its core, this bill prevents ISP's slowing down connections, and then charging a higher price for the 'normal' speed which is advertised as faster than usual. The Socialist Party sees this as an unfair cash grab that should technically be against trading laws.

The bill also includes sections which force ISP's to treat all data equally. By preventing them from looking at the data you're requesting (Deep Packet Inspection), they cannot give some data priority over other data. This could range from political campaigning to business marketing, which could influence citizens.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Looks familiar...
0
Hazzer1998
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
Aye
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
This bill does not make sense, it is written by someone who does not have knowledge about how internet services work, in one ward there will be dozens of exchange boxes at the end of streets, and there will be lots of lines of the same technology with varying speeds because the composition of the wire will have an impact on its conductivity; lines buried at different depths, or under different surfaces will have different temperatures which impacts conductivity; the positioning of the box by in the street will impact the speed of data sent down the lines; and demand for internet services will have alter conductivity: reduced conductivity will reduce the line speed.

Having a standard line speed sounds nice but the number of uncontrolled variables means it is not possible to make sure each line has a similar speed. This bill will see BT Openreach trying to slow line speeds down to meet the lowest line speeds. Including ISPs in this bill does not make sense because ISPs do not control the physical infrastructure of the internet, the variation in line speeds depends on the physical infrastructure, not the ISPs choosing to slow the speeds.
0
Mactotaur
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
Including ISPs in this bill does not make sense because ISPs do not control the physical infrastructure of the internet, the variation in line speeds depends on the physical infrastructure, not the ISPs choosing to slow the speeds.
That assumes ISPs don't throttle speeds intentionally, which we know some have done from investigations carried out.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by Mactotaur)
That assumes ISPs don't throttle speeds intentionally, which we know some have done from investigations carried out.
Some ISPs throttle the speeds but the point is this, there are many uncontrollable facts that determine line speeds, making the aims of this bill unobtainable.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
I suggest that this should be replaced by a wider Bill on BT and its activities, as they misuse the market power they have and the role in the 'last mile', in my opinion.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by barnetlad)
I suggest that this should be replaced by a wider Bill on BT and its activities, as they misuse the market power they have and the role in the 'last mile', in my opinion.
Just covering BT would be unfortunate.
0
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by barnetlad)
I suggest that this should be replaced by a wider Bill on BT and its activities, as they misuse the market power they have and the role in the 'last mile', in my opinion.
Was wondering how long it'd take for complaints about BT supposedly having too much market power.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
Pretty sure this bill is already in force more or less, check HANSARD.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by Rakas21)
Pretty sure this bill is already in force more or less, check HANSARD.
I think the last one was pre-Great Repeal.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
I think the last one was pre-Great Repeal.
That is correct.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
That is correct.
Fair enough. I presume this is not a straight copy though (assuming a non Socialist wrote the last one).
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by Rakas21)
Fair enough. I presume this is not a straight copy though (assuming a non Socialist wrote the last one).
Given I know who the author of this one is I would expect not.
0
Wellzi
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
Section 2)3 should have an exemption for ggovernmen security services imo
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
Aye
0
grimApocalypse
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by Wellzi)
Section 2)3 should have an exemption for ggovernmen security services imo
Nay. There is no good reason.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by Wellzi)
Section 2)3 should have an exemption for ggovernmen security services imo
I would support this but it is not my Bill, and the author feels otherwise; can we convince you to vote for it in this form?
0
Wellzi
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
I would support this but it is not my Bill, and the author feels otherwise; can we convince you to vote for it in this form?
I don't think you can, it's just such a major thing and by the looks of it the author won't which is a shame.
0
Unown Uzer
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
No way. This just means that streaming videos on the internet will be very slow, and downloading will also be very slow. Who wants to watch videos that have to buffer all the time?
1
X
new posts

All the exam results help you need

1,829

people online now

225,530

students helped last year
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

Hopeful (221)
12.46%
Excited (166)
9.36%
Worried (309)
17.43%
Terrified (390)
22%
Meh (186)
10.49%
Confused (39)
2.2%
Putting on a brave face (244)
13.76%
Impatient (218)
12.3%

Watched Threads

View All