Repeal "Internet Net Neutrality Act"
Affirming the importance of network neutrality and regulating Internet service providers to prevent content discrimination and other anti-competitive business practices,
Regretting that the flaws present in GAR #89, "Internet Net Neutrality Act", necessitate its repeal,
Recognizing that the target resolution prohibits Internet service providers from engaging in "network discrimination", defined in part as "intentionally blocking, interfering with, discriminating against, impairing, or degrading the ability of any person to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, application, or service through the Internet,"
Alarmed that many standard, common sense Internet pricing models, such as charging more for faster speeds, greater usage, and higher quality of service, are prohibited by the target resolution because they technically constitute "interfer[ence] with...the ability of [a] person to access...the Internet" as well as "discriminat[ion] against...person(s)" based on price paid,
Stunned that this restriction effectively requires Internet service providers to charge a person with very high levels of Internet usage the same amount for Internet access as a person with very low levels of Internet usage, which is ridiculous,
Concerned that this restriction harms both consumers and Internet service providers by preventing the former from purchasing an Internet plan appropriate to their needs and income while precluding the latter from recouping the costs of their substantial investments in network infrastructure,
Emphasizing that these pricing models are considered to be perfectly legitimate in virtually all other industries and markets, and there is no rational basis for singling out Internet service providers for special treatment,
Troubled by the redundancy in the target resolution's title ("Inter
net Net Neutrality Act"),
Hoping that a replacement network neutrality resolution will soon be passed without these flaws,
The General Assembly,
Repeals GAR #89, "Internet Net Neutrality Act".
Delegate's Opinion: This is the second time that this repeal has been brought up and it's being brought up again by the exact same person. A little bit disappointing to some of us. For reference, the author does agree that we do need a net neutrality act and has written a replacement one found
here. Which I actually don't much enjoy for a couple reasons... However. That is a talk for another day. On the current note... I feel like #89 does not restrict the flow of the market more than it already would be and it is an otherwise effective resolution. I am highly
opposed to this resolution.
Voting Stands: 7 For and 1 Against.
