Net neutrality to get new life in Congress

Just in time for presidential primary season, a key Democrat who championed Net neutrality laws during the last Congress is finally planning to try again.

Rep. Edward Markey

(Credit: U.S. House of Representatives)

Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), the chairman of a House of Representatives Internet and telecommunications panel, is readying a new version of his Network Neutrality Act, which was twice defeated by the Republican-controlled Congress during its consideration of a sweeping broadband policy bill last year.

Markey plans to introduce the new effort, which will "closely follow" the old one, during the next two to three weeks, shortly before Congress adjourns for the year, a spokeswoman told CNET News.com on Tuesday. Further action, including hearings, is expected in the new year.

National Journal's Technology Daily reported Markey's plans on Monday.

Net neutrality, of course, is the idea that broadband operators shouldn't be allowed to charge content providers extra fees for premium placement or delivery, nor should they be permitted to prioritize or discriminate against content.

Markey's previous bill would have required, among other things, that a network operator "not discriminate in favor of itself in the allocation, use, or quality of broadband services or interconnection with other broadband networks." "Interference and surcharges" on outside content and applications would be prohibited, as would installation of "network features, functions, or capabilities that thwart or frustrate compliance with the requirements or objectives" of the law. Failure to comply could result in fines or other punishments, including payment of damages to the complaining party.

Consumer groups and major Internet companies like Google and Amazon.com argue it's necessary to enact new regulations barring such activity, while broadband operators like AT&T and Comcast counter that the market will solve any perceived problems. Opponents of new laws also claim there's no evidence that broadband providers are throttling content in devious ways, although the recent brouhaha over Comcast's reportedly aggressive management of BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer file-sharing traffic has reignited Net neutrality advocates' calls for antidiscrimination rules.

Views on the need for new laws have tended to split along party lines, with Democrats generally supporting them and Republicans opposing them. Even so, virtually no action has occurred in this year's Democratic-controlled Congress--aside from the early-January reintroduction of last year's Senate proposal, which hasn't gone anywhere since--leaving some to ponder whether the debate is dead.

Along with recent pledges from Democratic presidential candidates like Barack Obama to enact Net neutrality laws if elected president, Markey's planned reintroduction indicates the sleeping beast may awaken yet.

[Pete Bardo]

Congress wants it both ways!

Do these Congress-critters ever talk to each other? This guy wants to assure "Net Neutrality" while others want colleges and universities to reign in P2P file sharing networks.<br /><br />I wonder how they are going to reconcile all this.

[Dalkorian]

technically different issue

The bill to force universities to reign in P2P is a different issue <br />from net neutrality. Net neutrality means Comcast can't force <br />other online entities to pay extortion in order to be served to <br />Comcast customers. Comcast can't favor Yahoo over Google just <br />because Yahoo paid for "priority" consideration.<br /><br />The universities aren't being asked to throttle P2P to anyone but <br />themselves. If the university was acting as an ISP to the local <br />community, that would fall into net neutrality territory.<br /><br />Bottom line - net neutrality = good. Forcing universities to <br />police their networks for the RIAA/MPAA = pure unadulterated <br />evil.<br /><br />Put another way ...<br />net neutrality = anti-bush, pro-American<br />forcing universities to be RIAA/MPAA cops = pro-bush, anti-<br />American

[Al57]

Net Neutrality is Wrong

Why do we want the government involved in the internet? This stuff will just open up a huge can of worms. And haven't we learned? Every time the government gets involved, there are usually very nasty side effects that involve even more regulation and legislation. <br /><br />Very quickly, each and every party becomes a special interest. This means that the customer is put in the back seat as each party tries to influence the various government entities involved. So what happens? What happens is the big guys are the ones who can afford lobbyists and to other ways to influence and the small guys are pushed out. Very quickly, the biggest technical and economic challenges that entrepreneurs have to overcome become tiny as compared to the legal and political issues that Net Neutrality will create.<br /><br />I don't know why more people don't see any of this.<br /><br />Net Neutrality is in fact the opposite of Democracy. Without thinking, it sounds good, but it's a terrible idea. I make sure to bring it up with people to show them how nasty this is. I suggest everyone do the same. KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT - NO SOCIALISM.

[directorblue]

Wrong. TCP/IP is inherently neutral...

...and what the carriers have talked about doing fundamentally breaks TCP/IP:<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/05/enforcing-net-neutrality-with-two-by.html" target="_newWindow">http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/05/enforcing-net-neutrality-with-two-by.html</a><br /><br />And here's an illustration of what we can expect if the carriers are able to turn their bastardized vision of the Internet into cable television:<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/10/comcasts-world-without-network.html" target="_newWindow">http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/10/comcasts-world-without-network.html</a>

[R. U. Sirius]

Net Neutrality is Right

&gt; Net Neutrality is in fact the opposite of <br />&gt; Democracy<br /><br /><br />Only if you are head of Comcast or AT&#38;T or Verizon would you be stupid enough to say such dreck.

[catbutt5]

Net Neutrality is right on!

We already have tiered access to Internet services that should <br />protect quality of service for all. After all, it's the plan the service <br />providers came up with in the first place.<br />When I call my cable/dsl company for a connection, they usually <br />offer me one or more options like: Basic speed = $24/mo, <br />Medium speed = $50/mo. and Fast speed = $60/mo.<br />I pay for the connection on my end, YouTube and other 'High-<br />value' sites that consume lots of bandwidth pay for the <br />connection on their end.<br />Even if I used the full amount of my bandwidth to download <br />video after video from YouTube, I've already paid for that <br />bandwdth and so has YouTube.<br />Companies that argue against net neutrality are just to charge <br />us again for the same service we're already paying for.<br />As for people who try to compare this issue to something like <br />Socialism, they're just trying to confuse you by muddying the <br />waters of the real issue.