Stiffening its resolve to be heard as telecom reform legislation moves through the Congress, the House Judiciary Committee thumbed its nose at its rival, the Commerce Committee, today when two leaders introduced a bill that would mandate net neutrality regulations. House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) and senior Democrat John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) today introduced legislation (HR 5417), or “The Internet Freedom and Non-Discrimination Act of 2006,” that would make certain kinds of discriminatory acts violations of the antitrust laws and that would further bar broadband providers from selectively “enhancing” content or applications they pass through their networks.
The bill amends the Clayton Act (which deals with anticompetitive and antitrust matters) by making it unlawful for a broadband provider to:
The heart of the bill, however, is a provision that basically bars broadband discrimination in terms of service enhancements a network provider may offer. The bill says that if a broadband provider enhances a particular type of data (e.g. video), it must enhance that type of data across-the-board.
If a broadband network provider prioritizes or offers enhanced quality of service to data of a particular type, it must prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of that type (regardless of the origin or ownership of such data) without imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such prioritization or enhanced quality of service.
This latter provision, while aimed at eliminating everybody’s worst fears about a discriminatory Internet “fast lane,” seems, to me, unworkable. Although this if-you-give-it-to-one-you-must-give-it-to-all philosophy has appeared in other net neutrality legislative proposals, I don’t see how this would work practically. In essence this kind of requirement would result in no service getting a boost or improvement or enhancement because most broadband providers can’t take on all comers.
So, in essence, nobody gets prioritized because this legislation would ban such prioritization, if not in a de jure sense then in a de facto reality. That’s OK, if that’s the intent; but will the courts ever uphold something like this?
I wish that a more sophisticated proposal would surface that doesn’t bar broadband providers, even in a practical sense, from doing anything interesting while also limiting their ability to favor certain services over others. Maybe this is a pipe dream.
Clearly network neutrality proponents are pleased. Gigi Sohn, President of Public Knowledge, said in a statement:
“The bill squarely addresses the issue of the enormous market power of the telephone and cable companies as the providers of 98 percent of the broadband service in the country. The bill restores the principle of non-discrimination that allowed the Internet to flourish in the dial-up era, making certain that the same freedom and innovation will flourish in the broadband era without burdensome regulation.”
Cynthia Brumfield at 4:07 PM|Comments(3)
Actually, my first fear is an attack on American soil. Internet fast lanes? Not so much. I find it ironic that net neutrality proponents use phrases such as "avoiding bursensome regulation" and "no toll roads on the information superhighway", while supporting legislation that will create burdensome regulation, all at great cost to the consumer who uses the Internet.
Posted by: keepitfree at May 21, 2006 2:09 AM
It would be a shame for such a useful tool to be regulated by people that know nothing about it. Who is going to protect and fight for consumers rights on this? We ultimately pay the price don't we?
Posted by: Katie at May 20, 2006 6:37 PM
It boggles my mind that Congress is wasting precious time actually considering this bill! The Internet does NOT need government intervention/regulation! This will only severely impede innovation and competition. Considering they have no expertise in this area, they need to stop meddling and focus on other issues that need attention now!
Posted by: Luv2Box at May 20, 2006 9:44 AM
Blogs We Read
