Inouye Co-Sponsors Senate Net Neutrality Bill

The legislation comes as the House Judiciary Committee prepares to mark up a new net neutrality bill (HR-5417) Wed. under Chmn. Sensenbrenner’s oversight (CD May 19 p3). This effort raises questions about the fate of the net neutrality provisions in the House Commerce Committee bill (HR-5252), which awaits floor action. Most expected that Judiciary would pass its bill, and then it would be up to Rules to decide the next step.

Though Rules would set terms of debate, several Hill sources said a strategy hasn’t been mapped out on how to proceed to reconcile the 2 bills. Meanwhile, Telecom Subcommittee Ranking Member Markey (D-Mass.) is poised to offer a net neutrality amendment once the Commerce bill goes to the floor. Behind closed doors, arguments are raging over the overlapping jurisdictions of the 2 committees. An uneasy working relationship between the 2 chairmen doesn’t matters any easier, we're told.

The Snowe-Dorgan bill responds to recent FCC decisions by preserving the openness of the Web and encouraging continued development of Internet technologies, services and content, said Inouye, who cosponsored the bill. He was critical of Chmn. Stevens’ draft, which he said didn’t go far enough. The bill, which amends the Communications Act, comes a day after introduction of Sensenbrenner’s net neutrality measure, which he said would amend antitrust laws to preserve a level playing field.

The Snowe-Dorgan bill would assure that Web freedom “will be [a] front and center” issue in the Commerce Committee’s debate over telecom reform, said Public Knowledge Pres. Gigi Sohn. “This legislation would preserve the open, innovative and creative Internet” much the way program access rules created new competition in video programming without govt. intervention, she said. It’s a shame that more GOP senators didn’t back the bill because net neutrality is bipartisan, Sohn said. Amazon.com, eBay, Google, InterActiveCorp, Microsoft and Yahoo cheered the bill in a joint statement, saying it will allow innovators, entrepreneurs and investors to proceed with fueling “the engine of our nation’s economy.”

The Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America, Free Press and U.S. PIRG also lauded the Snowe-Dorgan bill. In a letter to the Senate, the groups said S-2917 “restores key protections for consumers.” The tiering system for premium broadband proposed by network operators demonstrates the reality of the threat requiring legislation, the groups said. “The fees charged to content and service providers would inevitably find their way down to consumers’ wallets,” they said, requiring consumers to essentially pay twice for the same service.

But a chorus of opponents snapped back. Any call for regulating the Web is a diversion from ensuring true competition and video choice for America’s cable consumers, an AT&T spokesman said. Net neutrality would effectively make it illegal to bring new, innovative, and faster Internet services to consumers, he said. “While well-intentioned by some, net neutrality is really a ploy by the online giants to cement by legislative fiat their current ‘fast lane’ advantages by hobbling tomorrow’s start-up before it gets off the ground,” the official said.

USTelecom said the Internet has flourished because of the govt.’s hands-off approach. It’s unfortunate that some lawmakers in the House and Senate want to impose “harmful, anticonsumer regulations,” a spokeswoman said. If enacted, any of the net neutrality bills would drive up the cost of broadband and deny Americans new, competitive video services, she said.

S-2917 would regulate the Internet and that’s a bad idea, a BellSouth spokesman told us. He said the company remains committed to its pledge that it won’t block or degrade any legal Web content. “Legislation that prohibits us from providing network management services for the benefit of consumers is a solution in search of a problem,” he said. The telco spoke out against Sensenbrenner’s bill, too, saying it “proposes to fix a problem that does not exist.” BellSouth Vp-Govt. Affairs Herschel Abbott said the Internet has developed in “an atmosphere of freedom devoid of regulation” and consumers wouldn’t benefit from HR-5417. The result would be Web users’ being forced to “bear the entire cost of the Internet,” Abbott said.

Net neutrality provisions of the telecom bill from House Commerce Committee Chmn. Barton (R-Tex.) and Rep. Rush (D- N.Y.) would protect consumer and business interests adequately, said Committee Deputy Staff Dir.-Communications Larry Neal. The FCC has adopted those principles “and we propose to make them stick as a matter of law,” he said. The Barton-Rush bill empowers the Commission to enforce its broadband principles case by case, and violators are subject to a $500,000 fine per violation, he said. The agency isn’t “permitted to take its sweet time” -- the countdown begins when a complaint is filed and the FCC must resolve it within 90 days, he said. By dealing with real complaints rather than “imagined” problems by the “shoot-first, ask-later crowd,” the Commission can establish rules as providers roll out new services.

The anti net neutrality Hands Off the Internet (HOTI) coalition, backed by AT&T, Alcatel and the American Conservative Union, called the bill “a solution in search of a problem.” Prescribing more rules and creating a new complaint and adjudication process for the FCC is “a recipe for danger,” HOTI Pres. Chris Wolf told us. Any change to current law would also hinder the rollout of next-generation Internet. FreedomWorks Chmn. and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey said any net neutrality effort amounts to a “sweeping federal power grab” that inserts FCC regulators and congressional politics into “the very heart of the Internet’s operations.”

Meanwhile, Internet2 and Educause lauded HR-5417 Fri., calling it “absolutely critical” to ensure U.S. leadership in the global Internet economy. The research and education leaders said their constituents depend on “an open Internet” and Sensenbrenner’s measure would protect it. The bill would ensure that network operators don’t act as gatekeepers by “blocking, screening or discriminating” against certain kinds of Web traffic or creating segregated online highways for preferred services, the groups said.

Markey, whose net neutrality measure was rejected by the Commerce Committee, said the Sensenbrenner bill demonstrates that support for net neutrality legislation is “bipartisan and building.” CompTel Pres. Earl Comstock echoed his remarks. “Members are rightly concerned about how the consolidation of the industry and the lack of government oversight will adversely impact consumers and competition,” he said.