Net Neutrality Bill Clears House Judiciary Committee

Some piped up during the markup with worries that the committee was acting hastily on a bill whose repercussions were largely unknown. Several members expressed concerns that the House Commerce Committee’s broader telecom bill, which touches on net neutrality, ignores Judiciary’s authority on the matter. That bill (HR-5252), sponsored by Chmn. Barton (R-Tex.) and Rep. Rush (D-N.Y.), passed the Commerce Committee this month. HR-5252 “is written clearly to deny this committee, and frankly most citizens, of the right to remedy,” Rep. Weiner (D-N.Y.) said.

“While every member of this committee cares about our jurisdiction, I have some concerns about the substance of this bill,” said House Intellectual Property & Internet Subcommittee Chmn. Smith (R-Tex.). Web discrimination disputes are better addressed with rulings case-by-case, not by sweeping regulation, he argued. Smith called HR-5417 a “well intentioned bill,” but he said protecting the committee’s turf isn’t “necessarily tied to voting for a bill today.”

Despite its aims, HR-5417 could bar procompetitive conduct and have substantial unintended consequences, Smith warned, saying it could turn out to be “a regulator’s dream but an entrepreneur’s nightmare.” He said it’s unclear how broadband providers would comply with some provisions in the bill that he called “broad and vague.” A coalition of first responders also told lawmakers they feared HR-5417 could harm interoperability, Smith said, and it’s better to focus on preserving the application of current antitrust laws than pursue an “uncertain and unpredictable” legislative approach. That would preserve the committee’s jurisdiction while ensuring that “we don’t put a straightjacket on this sector of our economy,” he said. Besides, there’s no guarantee HR- 5417 will make it to the floor, he said. The House Rules Committee and House leadership still has to decide how to handle Sensenbrenner’s bill alongside the competing HR-5252. “There are lots of variables involved,” Smith said.

But Sensenbrenner maintained that his bill would uphold the Web’s “procompetitive nature.” He cited FCC statistics that 98% of American broadband users get access from a cable company or DSL providers -- an environment that’s ripe for “anticompetitive and discriminatory misconduct.” Opponents have sought to portray net neutrality efforts as regulatory, he said, but the bottom line is preserving the antitrust laws that have served the country as a competitive backstop against abuse.

The issue isn’t only key for constituents; it “comes right to your office door,” Conyers told colleagues. Many lawmakers enjoy interacting online with citizens, and “without the open pipes that allow this to happen… you could, I could, we could be put in the slow lane,” he said. Broadband providers would be free to block online content and services “for any reason,” and could charge websites to maintain their presence on the Internet, Conyers said. Rejecting a net neutrality bill could “spell the end of innovation” for small businesses and innovators, he said. Without net neutrality, “the open and free wheeling nature of the Internet we respect and like so much would be lost. We'd lose that town hall environment on the Internet,” Conyers said.

There’s more to net neutrality than what “one-pagers and talking points would suggest,” Rep. Delahunt (D-Mass.) said: “The issues are complex, they're arcane… and require a comprehensive understanding of the infrastructure of the Internet.” He urged the committee to conduct “an exhaustive and thorough review” before taking action. Proceed with caution, he warned; the bill could have “a profound influence on the future of the Internet in the U.S.” Delahunt said he didn’t have enough information to vote on the bill.

The vote “would have been unthinkable 3 weeks ago,” said Josh Silver, exec. dir. of Free Press, which coordinates the pro net neutrality SavetheInternet.com Coalition. “It shows that the politicians are listening to the vast number of citizens who don’t want the Internet to become the private domain of the cable and telephone monopolies,” he said. The action is a milestone for the growing movement to protect the public interest and defend Web freedom, he said. MoveOn.org Exec. Dir. Eli Pariser said the vote was “a solid loss for AT&T’s multimillion-dollar lobbyists and a solid victory for the rest of us.”

CompTel Pres. Earl Comstock called the bill “essential to preserving open access to the Internet for consumers and competitors.” The group said HR-5417 is necessary to counter recent actions by the FCC to remove nondiscrimination rules that applied to the transmission networks that make up the Internet. Public Knowledge Pres. Gigi Sohn said the legislation will ensure that antitrust law functions in an uncompetitive broadband marketplace. The bill would also restore the principles of nondiscrimination that were critical to the development of the Internet, she said.

The ItsYourNet coalition, backed by Amazon.com, eBay, Google, IAC/InterActiveCorp and Yahoo, said Thurs. was “a great day for the Internet.” “Congress has a duty to protect the longstanding and fundamental laws that govern the Internet and protect all of its users against discriminatory practices,” the group said.

NetCompetition.org Chmn. Scott Cleland said the committee approval disregarded the “disastrous economic effects that regulation will have.” Internet browsers and search markets are more concentrated and less competitive than the wireless and broadband industries, he said. HR-5417 does nothing to ensure that search engines will treat all search results equally and not discriminate against content by ranking sites based on how much advertising they pay to be a sponsored listing, he said: “There’s nothing neutral about the government dictating one and only one way to design networks.” USTelecom Pres. Walter McCormick called HR-5417 “misguided and reckless legislation” that could hamper investment and innovation and limit consumer choice.

Judging by members’ statements, the vote was “more about politics than substance,” said Hands Off the Internet Coalition (HOTI) co-Chmn. Chris Wolf: “Even members who voted for this bill said they had reservations about doing so and only voted for it because of committee jurisdictional concerns.” Congress should know that the typical Web user doesn’t care about jurisdictional squabbles among committees, Wolf said: “They do care about paying more for Internet access and that’s what this bill would do.” Net neutrality regulations would be “a direct financial hit to consumers and stop cold the country’s progress in providing affordable high-speed options,” he said.

AT&T said the bill would limit new Web services and Internet innovation. Exec. Vp Tim McKone said he was disappointed that the committee approved the bill but pleased that “the majority of the majority recognized that this legislation would deter investment in our nation’s broadband infrastructure.” AT&T is hopeful the majority in Congress will see the bill as “an attempt to solve a problem that does not exist, and will instead focus on bringing choice to consumers by passing video choice legislation,” he said. The Institute for Liberty, part of the recently formed Internet Freedom Coalition, said this will be remembered as “one of the saddest days for the Internet as we know it.” The bill’s passage is “nothing short of disastrous” for the future of the Web and HR-5417 is “as reckless as it is unnecessary,” it said.

Last Minute Maneuvering

Net neutrality backers weren’t the only interests scrambling for 11th hour publicity. While supporters like Public Knowledge, Google, Free Press and the American Library Assn., touted the supposed benefits of Sensenbrenner’s measure on a call with reporters (CD May 25 p7), opponents pursued a campaign to kill the bill.

Hands Off The Internet coalition co-Chmn. Chris Wolf said Thurs. morning that the hearing would be “a chance to highlight the fatal problem with regulated Internet ‘neutrality.'” By prohibiting commercial agreements between Internet providers and online firms, the regulations would “dramatically shift the cost of building America’s next- generation networks onto the backs of consumers.” “This should be especially awkward for lawmakers of both parties who are urging action to spur America’s lagging consumer broadband adoption,” he predicted. Supporting HR-5417 would be “a giant step backward for Internet users,” said the group, backed by AT&T, Alcatel and the National Assn. of Manufacturers.