The FCC’s Internet policy statement would embodied in federal sta...

Act, which doesn’t yet have a bill number, is similar to a measure introduced by Eshoo and Markey last Congress. It calls the Internet “comparable to roads and electricity” as essential infrastructure, but says its historic policies of openness are undergoing “erosion” as network operators exercise control over content and services. The bill refers to “network neutrality” in several places and says the principle is needed to protect First Amendment rights. It would prevent ISPs from interfering with customers’ use of the Internet for “lawful” content or applications, adding a charge on top of subscription services, denying users the ability to attach devices that don’t “harm” the network, and selling service that “prioritizes” traffic. The bill also would bar ISPs from installing “network features, functions, or capabilities that impede or hinder compliance” with the measure’s provisions -- an indirect reference to traffic management gear of the kind offered by Sandvine and others. It would tell the FCC to write rules to ensure that ISPs disclose “meaningful information” to customers in a “conspicuous” manner and make available “sufficient network capacity” to users “to the extent feasible.” A network management practice is “reasonable” and exempt from regulation if it “furthers a critically important interest,” is narrowly tailored and is the “least restrictive” way to meet the need. The FCC would consider the “particular network architecture or technology limitations of the provider” in deciding what’s reasonable - an accommodation to slower DSL providers and cable companies with limited capacity for uploads. ISPs would have to disclose speed, “nature and limitations” of service, and network management practices “in the ordinary, routine use” of broadband service. The FCC would be required to impose rules within six months of enactment to prevent ISPs from requiring customers to buy bundled services to get Internet access. The commission also would have to impose rules within that time to promote facilities-based and other forms of competition, define “private transmission capacity services,” decide whether to exempt such services from neutrality rules and ensure they don’t diminish ordinary Internet access services. The FCC could decide on complaints filed by consumers against ISPs and could fine providers for violations. Markey said the bill would deal with the Supreme Court’s Brand X decision that classified Internet access as an unregulated “information service.” It would “restore the guarantee that one does not have to ask permission to innovate.” USTelecom President Walter McCormick said the bill would “create broad uncertainty and destabilize the investment that is currently creating jobs, spurring innovation, and lowering prices for consumers.”