I’m not sure if I’m missing something (and I’d like to hear any opposing views) but the revised new Stevens bill that will be marked-up in Committee on the 22nd looks far more promising on the net neutrality front than some had feared. The (159-page!) bill has a section under Title IX of the Communications Act called “The Internet Consumer Bill of Rights Act of 2006,” which, while not outright banning discrimination by broadband providers, seeks to preserve the existing model of free and unfettered consumer access to content and services.
The bill says that the FCC should “seek to preserve the free flow of information and ideas on the Internet” while preserving a competitive, unregulated market. More importantly, the bill says that Internet service providers “shall allow” consumers to:
(1) access and post any lawful content of that subscriber’s choosing;
(2) access any web page of that subscriber’s choosing;
(3) access and run any voice application, software, or service of that subscriber’s choosing;
(4) access and run any video application, software, or service of that subscriber’s choosing;
(5) access and run any email application, software, or service of that subscriber’s choosing;
(6) access and run any search engine of that subscriber’s choosing;
(7) access and run any other application, software, or service of that subscriber’s choosing;
(8) connect any legal device of that subscriber’s choosing to the Internet access equipment of that subscriber, if such device does not harm the network of the Internet service provider; and
(9) receive clear and conspicuous information, in plain language, about the estimated speeds, capabilities, limitations, and pricing of any Internet service offered to the public.
Moreover, Internet service providers aren’t allowed to interfere with these rights except “as provided by law;” admittedly that last caveat might be big enough to drive a truck through, but still it seems to cap the ability of broadband providers to mickey with content and services.
In a very interesting section, the bill takes great pain to preserve First Amendment free speech rights as it relates to the Internet. Aside from barring any level of government from banning content for political or religious reasons, it also bars Internet service providers from doing the same thing.
no Internet service provider engaged in interstate commerce may limit, restrict, ban, prohibit, or otherwise regulate content on the Internet because of the religious views, political views, or any other views expressed in such content unless specifically authorized by law.
Like the bill passed by the House, the Stevens bill directs the FCC to set up adjudicatory procedures for receiving complaints regarding any interference on the part of broadband providers, and bars the FCC from establishing regulations that impose any greater burdens on broadband providers than exist in the Act. However, unlike the House bill, the FCC is ordered to monitor and report annually on
(1) the developments in Internet traffic processing, routing, peering, transport, and interconnection;
(2) how such developments impact the free-flow of information over the public Internet and the consumer and small business experience using the public Internet;
(3) business relationships between Internet service providers and applications and online user service providers; and
(4) the development of and services available over public and private Internet offerings.
Is it just me, or does all this sound pretty good? While not outright banning certain business models that might allow broadband providers to favor some services over others, as net neutrality advocates seek, this bill does seems to say that broadband providers will be taking a big risk if they engage in activity that blocks or reduces consumers’ ability to access content and services.
Cynthia Brumfield at 11:47 AM|Comments(2)
From the start of the web until a Supreme Court decision last year, we enjoyed true Network Neutrality.
Now we're tossed the crumb that while ISPs will be allowed to intentionally make some websites faster and some slower for their customers who connect to the surf the internet, at least they can't block them completely.
Website discrimination should be illegal.
Posted by: Eric Jaffa at June 20, 2006 12:55 AM
Agreed that this should placate the neutrality advocates. I wonder what the legal definition of "access" is, though? Could such a term be used to bar traffic prioritization? Does "access" imply a certain level of performance?
My take has always been that differentiated services need to be available and profitable. And that may in fact mean prioritizing some packets over others, for a fee. Neutrality advocates are fundamentally against that idea, but it needs to be tested in the marketplace.
A non-neutral Yahoo-branded service for $4.99/month is entirely possible, and would serve a market niche. There are some people who simply don't care about a having access to everything, and are shopping on price for baseline functionality. Should that be illegal?
Neutrality advocates might be confusing their own preferences for the rights of consumers...
Posted by: Matt S at June 19, 2006 4:29 PM
Blogs We Read
