WASHINGTON—An intra-party dispute broke out late Wednesday regarding the issue of network-neutrality when Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas) tried to require the Federal Communications Commission to study how content providers and search engines like Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc. might distort the information delivered to consumers. Such firms sometimes promote the content of paying companies over those that do not pay.
Gonzalez’s amendment was a continuation of a theme Gonzalez had pushed during debate on an earlier network-neutrality amendment. His point was that it is not the fault of the networks that have yet to prioritize content but have indicated a willingness to do so, but rather the content providers and search engines that currently prioritize content based on the relationships they have. Gonzalez’s district includes San Antonio, home of AT&T Inc.
Network neutrality generally refers to the ability to run any lawful application or connect any lawful device to the communications network. For content providers, it means not being required to pay pipe owners to have their content carried or given priority.
Both AT&T and Verizon Communications Inc., proponents of the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Efficiency Act because of its focus on creating a national franchise for their Internet-protocol TV offerings, have said they will consider giving priority service to content providers who are willing to pay for the privilege.
Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), ranking member of the House telecommunications subcommittee, an opponent of what he calls, “creating a fast lane and a slow lane” on the Internet, fought back against the Gonzalez amendment. Markey tried to offer an amendment that would have added the top five telephone companies and top five cable companies to the FCC study.
However, the Markey amendment was unnecessary because the Gonzalez amendment was soundly defeated. That result, the opposite of a similar defeat of an earlier Markey amendment to preserve network neutrality, showed that lawmakers’ views of network neutrality often correspond with their views of whether the big telephone companies should be allowed to compete in the TV business.
The original Markey amendment was a repeat of what he offered during the House telecommunications subcommittee consideration two weeks ago. The failed Markey amendment would have made specific network-neutrality provisions and required network owners to treat all like bits the same. This would have prevented network operators from reserving a portion of the available capacity for their own services.
Pipe owners have said they would like to prioritize packets so they can manage their networks effectively. Network-neutrality proponents warn that this is code for creating two Internets; one with premium content paid for by both the consumers and content providers, and the one that exists today.
