Net neutrality legislation would stop the owners of broadband networks from charging for prioritized content and services over their pipes. Without such laws, net neutrality proponents argue a two-tiered Internet would transpire – with a fast lane for priority content and a sluggish lane for everything else.
Broadband operators argue they have the right to recoup investments in their networks, and point out that the US Federal Communications Commission currently has the right to fine any operator who unlawfully blocks content on their network.
But net neutrality supporters say denigration of non-prioritized content, which is subtler and more difficult to police than blocking, is the more likely outcome.
The US Senate will soon, most likely on June 22, consider an amendment to add net neutrality laws to a broader telecom reform bill, called the Consumer’s Choice and Broadband Deployment Act.
The bi-partisan amendment, drafted by senators Olympia Snowe and Byron Dorgan, is similar to an amendment that was unanimously voted down by the House.
At the hearing, several advocacy group witnesses and Senate Commerce Committee members disserted net neutrality, among other issues in the broader bill.
Republican Senator Gordon Smith argued that net neutrality had become such a contentious issue that it threatened to jeopardize the passage of the broader telecom reform bill.
There is so much enormous good in this broader bill that it would be a tragedy for our nation if net neutrality is the basis upon which it is entirely taken down, Smith said. And that’s a very real possibility the way I see things shaping up.
Republican Senator John Sununu said that net neutrality legislation failed to pass not just in the House, but also on the editorial pages of newspapers that rarely agree. The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal recently ran editorials saying it was wrong to impose net neutrality regulations now, Sununu pointed out.
We should be very careful before we start imposing Internet regulations, Sununu said.
Because if there’s anything the public will understand it’s that a heavy regulatory hand kills incentives to develop new products, deploy new technologies, he said and that ultimately will be something consumers will feel and respond to in a very negative way.
Some of the world’s largest Internet companies disagree. Amazon.com, eBay, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo have rallied lawmakers to pass net neutrality rules.
Chief executives at Google and eBay also have urged their online customers call their local Congress representative asking for net neutrality laws.
Already, a groundswell of support has amassed online, spurred by various groups, individuals and celebrities, including musicians Moby and REM.
Net neutrality advocacy group SavetheInternet.com has released a tongue-in-cheek rendition of ‘Mr Tambourine Man’ called ‘God Save the Internet’, which is being freely distributed online.
Scott Goodstein, spokesperson for The Broadband Project, which helped release the song, said it was getting the net neutrality message out through viral marketing, thanks to the blogger community and online music forums, notably MySpace.com.
The idea that the citizens of the world are somehow squatting on the telecom giants’ pipes is ludicrous, said Kay Hanley, one of the performers of God Save the Internet. I found out what these guys were up to, I jumped at the opportunity to get involved. This is a fight for our generation, if ever there was one.
Ben Scott, policy director of the liberal advocacy group Free Press, which is part of the SavetheInternet.com coalition, was among those who testified in front of the senate.
Scott argued against the notion that it was premature to enact net neutrality laws. The chairman of the US Federal Communications Commission and several broadband operators have said net neutrality laws were unnecessary in the absence of widespread abuse.
If … we find in five years that the Internet has changed for the worse and we want to go back, all the network operators who are currently building out their networks will have installed network discrimination routers in their systems, Scott said and they will have to divest and completely change the technologies that are in that infrastructure.
I think congress would have a hard time undoing that kind of investment.
If the net neutrality amendment is passed by the Senate, the bill would then move to the full Senate floor. If it gets the green light by the full Senate, the bill would then need to be reconciled with the House bill, which currently has no net neutrality amendment. Both the Senate and the House would need to then pass revised bills before a net neutrality law appears on the President’s desk for signing.
In other words, even if the Senate agrees to the amendment, net neutrality would have several more hurdles to cross. And with a November election on the calendar, which would likely slow progress further, a resolution may not be likely this year.
