Cantwell Bill in Senate Would Impose Stricter Net Neutrality Rules

The Cantwell bill flies in the face of a growing GOP effort on the Hill to strip away net neutrality rules prescribed by the FCC. Cantwell said in December that the FCC was within its rights when it issued the order, but that she wished the order had more teeth (CD Dec 22 p5). She said her bill “returns the broadband cop back to the beat, and creates the same set of obligations regardless of how consumers get their broadband.” Without the bill’s protections, ISPs “will likely favor their own or affiliated content, service, and applications because they have the economic incentives and technical means to do so,” Cantwell said. “This could lead to a tiered Internet with premium fast lanes and slow lanes for the rest of us. We can’t afford to let this happen if our nation is to achieve the important broadband goals put forward in the National Broadband Plan."

"The recent FCC ruling on net neutrality does not do nearly enough to protect consumers, and this bill is designed to maintain a free and open Internet,” said Franken. “This isn’t just about speech, it’s also about entrepreneurship and innovation, and it’s about our economy."

The bill won the support of several public interest groups, including Free Press, Public Knowledge and Consumers Union. “Your legislation provides a responsible long-term solution to the shortcomings of the Commission’s rules and is necessary to protect the Internet against the threats it faces,” wrote Free Press Policy Advisor Joel Kelsey in a letter to Cantwell dated Monday. Consumers Union also supported the bill, and urged Cantwell to oppose any efforts to repeal the FCC’s order.

But major trade groups for broadband providers kept mum about the bill Tuesday. NCTA and CTIA declined to comment. USTelecom didn’t immediately respond to a request. Verizon, which filed a lawsuit against the FCC action last week, also declined comment.

The Cantwell bill would allow “reasonable” network management. That’s defined as management which is “essential for a legitimate network management purpose assuring the operation of the network.” The approach taken must be “appropriate for achieving the stated purpose,” narrowly tailored and “among the least restrictive, least discriminatory, and least constricting of consumer choice available."

It would ban broadband operators from charging for prioritized delivery of IP packets over the Internet. And it would require broadband providers to work with local, middle-mile providers on “fair and reasonable terms.” The bill would require all charges, practices, classifications and rules related to broadband Internet access to meet a public interest “just and reasonable” standard. The bill allows broadband users to file net neutrality complaints at either the FCC or a U.S. district court. It allows state attorneys general to file on behalf of residents for enforcement or civil penalties.

The bill also requires providers to offer standalone broadband Internet service. If the FCC converts the Universal Service Fund to support broadband, the bill would require the FCC to only allow participation by providers offering standalone broadband. The bill also would require ISPs to provide broadband to a requesting end user so long as the request is “reasonable.”

The bill faces long odds in the divided Congress. “You will probably see hearings and some forward progress,” said MF Global analyst Paul Gallant, “but given the polarization around net neutrality, it will be pretty difficult to actually get something passed.” House Republicans don’t want net neutrality regulations, and any bill “that attempts to impose stronger open-Internet regulations on wireless services could even make it difficult for some Senate Democrats to back,” said Jeff Silva, an analyst with Medley Global Advisors.