WASHINGTON—After expressing concerns that the network-neutrality provisions in the Senate Commerce Committee’s telecommunications-reform bill weren’t strong enough, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), a ranking member of the committee, signed onto a bill Friday praised by network-neutrality proponents.
The Internet Preservation Freedom Act does not allow the Federal Communications Commission to establish specific network-neutrality rules, but outlines a specific enforcement process for resolving complaints of anti-network neutrality behavior.
A coalition of large application, software and content companies praised the Senate bill saying it provided “a meaningful, bi-partisan solution that will maintain an open Internet and prevent broadband network operators from using their control over Internet access to control the experience of Internet users and compromise the vibrant Internet marketplace.”
“Over a relatively short timeframe, the Internet has become a robust engine for market innovation, economic growth, social discourse and the free flow of ideas precisely because it has allowed consumer choice and control over the use of lawful content, applications and services. In turn, anyone with a good idea has been able to connect to consumers and compete on a level playing field for consumers’ business. The marketplace has picked winners and losers, and not a central gatekeeper. This bedrock concept of connecting innovators and consumers without interference, known as ‘net neutrality,’ has been a hallmark feature of the Internet and is a principle reason why America leads the world in online innovation,” said Inouye. “Regrettably, without this legislation, that heritage may be at risk, as traditional rules that have required communications operators to follow principles of non-discrimination no longer apply.”
Network neutrality generally refers to the ability to run any application or connect any 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. Some pipe owners (cable, telecom and wireless carriers) 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. Left out of this debate is the recognition that wireless already prioritizes and restricts content.
Network neutrality has emerged as the key battleground for telecommunications-reform legislation with nothing less than the future of the Internet at stake. Proponents believe that a two-tiered Internet will stifle innovation and opponents believe they need to operate their networks as they see fit.
The network-neutrality issue has also shown the interest lawmakers have in telecommunications policy. The House Judiciary Committee fought to have a first crack at the House Commerce Committee-passed bill before floor consideration. While the attempt failed, the House Judiciary Committee was given until the end of this week to consider its own legislation.
Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, wasted no time in introducing his own pro-network-neutrality bill.
“This legislation will provide an insurance policy for Internet users against being harmed by broadband network operators abusing their market power to discriminate against content and service providers. While I am not opposed to providers responsibly managing their networks and providing increased bandwidth to those consumers who wish to pay for it, I am opposed to providers giving faster, more efficient access to certain service providers at the expense of others. This legislation will ensure that this type of discriminatory behavior will not take place, and will help to continue the tradition of innovation and competition that has defined the Internet,” said Sensenbrenner.
The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider the Sensenbrenner bill Wednesday.
If the House Republican leadership allows the Judiciary Committee bill to be considered along with the House Commerce Committee bill, it will represent a defeat for the House Commerce Committee leadership, which had tried to keep the bill clean from issues that might trigger other committee interest.
On the Senate side, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a general telecommunications-reform hearing Tuesday.
