TMCnet News
Net Neutrality Moves on to the Next Round on Capitol HillTMCnet Associate Editor The net neutrality debate continues to rage on in Congress this week. Yesterday, Rep. Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts) introduced the “Network Neutrality Act of 2006,” a bill which outlines specific rules geared to preserve net neutrality.
The bill - which is being co-sponsored by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Virginia), Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-California) and Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Washington) - is strikingly similar to Sen. Ron Wyden’s (D-Oregon) “Internet Non-Discrimination Act,” which was introduced in the Senate several months ago. “… if we don’t protect the openness of the Internet for entrepreneurial activity, we’re ruining a wonderful model for low barrier entry, innovation, and job creation,” Rep. Markey said as he introduced the bill on the House floor yesterday. “Broadband network owners should not be able to determine who can and who cannot offer services over broadband networks or over the Internet. The detrimental effect to the digital economy would be quite severe if such conduct were permitted and became widespread. The deterioration of significant policies of nondiscrimination by the imposition of artificial bottlenecks by broadband network owners imperil economic growth, innovation, job creation, and First Amendment freedom of expression on such networks.” “The Network Neutrality Act of 2006 offers Members a clear choice,” Rep. Markey added. “It is a choice between favoring the broadband designs of a small handful of very large companies, and safeguarding the dreams of thousands of inventors, entrepreneurs, and small businesses. This legislation is designed to save the Internet and thwart those who seek to fundamentally and detrimentally alter the Internet as we know it. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this bill and urge the House to take a decisive stand in favor of network neutrality.” Net neutrality is the concept that everyone, everywhere should have free and unfettered access to all that the Internet has to offer, and that network operators should treat all data equally as it traverses their networks. The issue came to a head this past fall when the major U.S. telecommunications companies, including AT&T (News - Alert), BellSouth (News - Alert) and Verizon, lobbied Congress to set up rules allowing them to establish separate tiers of faster broadband service, and also allowing them to charge Internet companies such as Google (News - Alert), and service providers such as Vonage, fees to access those tiers (in order to facilitate express delivery of their services to their customers). Opponents of such a scheme claim it violates the free and open nature of the Internet - with some claiming that it will lead to the blocking of websites, degradation of voice and video signals, and other forms of “discrimination” - thus “ruining” the successful model now deployed. The major telecommunications carriers, on the other hand, claim they need to develop a new business model to help them finance upgrades to their networks – expensive upgrades which they claim are necessary to keep the ever-increasing volume of voice and video packets from clogging the Internet’s pipes. The big carriers say they have no intention to block web content or degrade signals – however, they have every intention to create network architectures that will help them make profits. Just like Sen. Wyden’s “Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006,” Rep. Markey’s proposed bill contains language which would prohibit network operators from blocking, impairing, degrading, discriminating against or interfering with any data traversing across their networks. Although the bill would allow network operators to build new, faster tiers of Internet service, it would prohibit them from charging fees to access these tiers. The bill also gives expanded powers to the Federal Communications Commission to investigate and act upon alleged incidents of “discrimination,” including a provision which would give the FCC (News - Alert) the power to issue a “cease and desist” order to any network operator suspected of engaging in discriminatory practices. The introduction of the bill follows the failed passage of an amendment, introduced by Rep. Markey last week, to the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act calling for tougher language aimed at preserving net neutrality. Last Wednesday, the House Commerce Committee, led by its Republican majority, voted down the amendment 22 to 34. The committee then approved the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act by a vote of 42 to 12. Although Rep. Markey’s amendment never made it into the bill, that doesn’t mean the bill completely fails to address the issue of net neutrality. The bill includes a provision which gives the FCC the power to investigate alleged acts of discrimination by network operators on a “prima facie” basis. After a complaint has been brought to the FCC’s attention, it has 90 days to investigate and decide whether to impose punitive measures (the burden of proof lies on the side of the network operator, which can attempt to show that no such discrimination took place). In addition, the bill gives the FCC the power to impose fines of up to $500,000, per incident, providing it finds the network operator “guilty” of violating net neutrality principles. The Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act is one of several bills, each slightly different, which include net neutrality provisions now circulating on Capitol Hill. All are being drafted as Congress takes up the daunting task of revising the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which is now largely obsolete due to dramatic changes in the telecommunications industry - mainly the migration of voice and video services to the Internet. If approved by the full House and Senate, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act will, as its main purpose, enable the establishment of national franchises for cable and telephone companies seeking to deliver video services, including IPTV (News - Alert), over the Internet (thus eliminating the need for the local franchise agreements which are now required). According to Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House Commerce Committee and author of the bill, the main goal of the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act is “to increase price and service competition to cable, while speeding the rollout of high-speed Internet service.” Many feel the bill is likely to be approved because of its national video franchise component, which has overwhelming support: Both opponents and proponents to net neutrality agree that video franchise reform is needed (so regardless of whether the bill ultimately addresses the issue of Internet access, it seems unlikely that either side will be willing to “throw the baby out with the bath water”). There remains a possibility, however, that additional amendments pertaining to net neutrality will be tacked onto this bill (as well as to the others now being considered) as it moves through the legislative process. Meanwhile, Sen. Ted Stevens, who chairs the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation, yesterday introduced yet another telecommunications bill designed as a replacement for the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Unlike the aforementioned House bill, Sen. Stevens’ “Communications Act of 2006” will not create a national video franchise, but rather will streamline the current franchise process. The sweeping, 135-page bill includes, among other things, provisions for re-vamping the Universal Service Fund – a phone tax which is used to subsidize rural telephone carriers. It does not, however, include specific rules pertaining to net neutrality. Instead, it would merely require the FCC to study the issue for five years and then seek rule-making authority if it sees a problem. Net neutrality proponents say this is tantamount to completely avoiding the issue. Whether the “family” of current Senate and House bills will be combined, or reconciled in some other fashion, remains to be seen. In a report on RCRWireless News yesterday, George Reed-Dellinger of Washington Analysis, which does policy research for Wall Street, said it was unlikely that the Stevens Bill would pass during this year’s legislative session, which is expected to conclude in about 70 days. “With the House debating only a narrow video-franchise bill, and less than 70 days remaining in the legislative year, this more ambitious 135-page legislative initiative is unlikely to pass the Senate, much less be reconciled with any legislation in the House in 2006,” Reed-Dellinger was quoted as saying. The Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act is expected to be considered on the House Floor tomorrow. The Senate Commerce Committee is not expected to consider the bill until summer. ------- Patrick Barnard is Associate Editor for TMCnet and a columnist covering the telecom industry. To see more of his articles, please visit Patrick Barnard’s columnist page. |