New Net neutrality bill frowns on ISP 'favoritism'

Comcast, AT&T, and other network operators would be expected to refrain from "unreasonable discriminatory favoritism" of content on their pipes under a recrafted Net neutrality proposal introduced Wednesday in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Rep. Edward Markey

(Credit: U.S. House of Representatives)

But this time around, the new bill (PDF) sponsored by Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of a House Internet and telecommunications panel, isn't directly forcing Internet service providers to follow specific rules. The new bill is an apparent effort to be less prescriptive than his previous efforts, which failed in a Republican-dominated Congress two years ago.

"The bill contains no requirements for regulations on the Internet whatsoever," Markey said in a statement upon introducing the bill. "It does, however, suggest that the principles which have guided the Internet's development and expansion are highly worthy of retention, and it seeks to enshrine such principles in the law as guide stars for U.S. broadband policy."

Rep. Charles "Chip" Pickering (R-Miss.), who has argued against Net neutrality regulations in the past, is now co-sponsoring the rewritten measure, which is being called the Internet Freedom Preservation Act.

The modified approach is an apparent attempt to address the howls of protest from network operators, who have argued that previous Net neutrality bills in Congress amount to unnecessary Internet regulations.

The old bill decreed that broadband operators have certain duties: not blocking or degrading content, not prioritizing some applications over others, and not imposing "surcharges" for premium placement, to name a few. Violators would have been subject to penalties. A pending Senate bill, which hasn't yet seen any action in this session of Congress, takes a similar approach.

The new Markey-Pickering bill, by contrast, proposes adding four broadband policy statements to existing federal communications law. Those statements build upon a set of broadband policy principles that the Federal Communications Commission adopted years ago, including recommendations that the government allow consumers to reach the lawful content and applications of their choice and hook up whatever devices they please, provided that they don't harm the network.

Violation of those principles would not carry any penalties under the new bill, according to a Markey aide. The bill does, however, leave open the possibility of tougher rules later. One principle dictates that the government should adopt and enforce "baseline protections to guard against unreasonable discriminatory favoritism for, or degradation of, content by network operators based upon its source, ownership, or destination on the Internet."

The bill would direct the FCC to study broadband providers' current practices and whether "enforceable" rules governing Internet openness are necessary. The FCC would also be required to stage at least eight public "broadband summits" at "geographically diverse locations" around the United States to discuss the state of competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice in broadband.

The bill's introduction arrives amid a recent stepped-up focus in Washington on network management practices. The FCC is weighing whether it's "reasonable" for companies to slow down peer-to-peer traffic on their networks, as Comcast has admitted to doing in what it argues is an attempt to keep all its subscribers surfing smoothly.

The same consumer advocacy groups that support Net neutrality legislation have asked the FCC to declare that such practices aren't, in fact, "reasonable," and should be forcibly stopped.

The FCC also announced on Tuesday that it's holding a February 26 public hearing at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Mass., to hear from experts on network management issues.

Fans of Net neutrality laws--including Amazon.com, Google, and a number of consumer advocacy groups--support Markey's latest proposal, heaping praise on the new language before the congressman had even formally introduced it. They have long argued that without strong Net neutrality principles enshrined in law, there will be nothing to stop network operators from, say, charging YouTube additional fees to be delivered to consumers faster than a rival video-sharing Web site.

The Markey bill is "an important step in ensuring the Internet remains open for consumers and innovators," said Markham Erickson, executive director of the Open Internet Coalition, whose members include major search engines, electronic retailers, librarians, and public-interest groups.

Network operators, by contrast, have long opposed Net neutrality regulations because they argue that they need the freedom to manage their networks as they see fit and that new obligations could discourage investments in building out their pipes.

Scott Cleland, the chairman of NetCompetition.org, a group whose members include all the major cable, telephone, and wireless companies, said Markey's new approach doesn't blunt those concerns. While the "letter" of the new Markey bill may not include those new regulations, he said, the "spirit" of it does, creating the same heartburn for opponents as the earlier version.

Updated at 9:53 a.m. PST: Comcast declined to comment on the measure, and cable industry representatives were not immediately prepared to comment.

The U.S. Telecom Association, which represents large Internet service providers like AT&T and Verizon Communications, blasted the new bill. Group president Walter McCormick said it would "blindly legislate a new national broadband policy, without regard to its implications, and then require the FCC to spend the next year determining whether the Internet is being constructed, managed, and operated in conformance with this new government mandate."

[ordaj]

Forget it

As we've seen, the telecos own our politicians and will get their way. Hell, they just got retroactive immunity for breaking the law.

[ralfthedog]

If ATT blocked or degraded calls to the local cable company...

If ATT blocked or degraded calls to the local cable company, That would be wrong. If ATT were payed by Joe's Plumbing to limit the number of calls that Three Men and a Wrench were allowed to receive, that would be wrong. If ATT were to say, you can only talk about the weather, not marmots, that would be wrong.

Internet Service Providers are wanting to do these things. If it is wrong for phone service, it is wrong for internet service.

All Phone service must be treated the same (With the exception of charges for long distance calls). The Internet witch is far more important than voice service should have the same if not better protection.

[John Lak]

So Right. Thanks! Keep Up the Good Fight

*

[Geminate]

It is legal...

It is legal to run an ISP this way, but it must be clearly said/stated BEFORE taking on a new user/customer what types of internet usage may be blocked or throttled. For previous users that signed up and were not made aware of blocking or throttling, their internet experience may not be tampered with by Comcast. No Comcast you can't bury your intentions in the 'fine print' you must state in big bold letters before a user signs up that your service practices blocking and throttling of P2P and other particular types of internet activity. In reality there is no such thing as 'excessive traffic'. What Comcast considers excessive other ISP's consider normal. The world is moving toward faster and constant internet connections, most ISP's are already accommodating this usage. There is no stopping P2P usage, especially with common Television now available on the Internet. Comcast - you are either in or out, with us or against us; make a choice, stand by it, or get out of the way and let 'real' service providers provide real services.

[n1pfl]

ISP Regulation

It's about time the goverment reengaged itself in the regulation, and improvment of Internet quality.
Let us be number one (USA)in the internet services availability and innovation once again!
ASAP

[nuckelhedd]

Are you mad?

This bill would neuter the previous version. Did you miss the part about wanting to remove "enforceable" rules? You could suggest to me anything you want but if theres no penalty i'll do whatever i want. Comcast has already been caught slowing down traffic to sites they don't get paid for. Without the rule and enforcable action against it do you really think they won't do it?

Seriously Do you think they won't do whatever they damn well please if no one tells them they can't. You like reading this websites opinion pieces apparently, if this bill passes your provider could in effect block access to it if they felt like it or if you hadn't bought the "premium" internet package with all the channels so to speak. Take a good read through it and think about the worst you could do if this was your business. And don't think like the law abiding citizen i am sure you are. Think about it from a purely profit and power standpoint and think what you could do.....

[gunplay]

You are all destructive useful idiots!!

IDIOTS! IDIOTS! I am surrounded by them. Why? Why?! Do you cry out for the government to help you idiots? You stupid retarded idiots?! The government will help you huh? This government... this very same government, you think cares one iota about you, the individual? The congress of the PATRIOT ACT, the president of the WAR, and the judicial system of the CORPORATE EMINENT DOMAIN?!

Laws, you want more laws?!!!! The internet works! NOW! HERE! TODAY! What the hell is wrong with it? NOTHING! The internet is fantastic, it is magical, it is capitalism at it's most glorious and finest. You want to create a law to fix nothing. But guess what your support of this new law will do? MAKE IT BREAK, IDIOTS! And guess what you will clamor for after it is broken? MORE LAWS! MORE MORE MORE MORE, your constant, consistent, incessant INSANE idiotic cries to slowly kill every little piece of this America that I love!

You want to know why Comcast has to implement "Quality of Service"? Do you know why Comcast has to drop bit torrent packets? You don't care. You're not educated, you don't even want to be. You're an idiot. You love your ignorance, your ignorant damn laws passed by your ignorant damn Congress. I'll tell you why Comcast does it. It's called a denial of service attack. That is what the bit torrent protocol accidentally does to Comcast's uniquely designed network. It floods the network full of so much chatter so bad that other people can't load a web page snappy if their neighbor is downloading. Let alone VOIP. VOIP quality is destroyed by bit torrent storms on Comcast's network. This is a technical problem, not political. But you people wouldn't know that, would you? You people wouldn't know that Comcast loves it's customers and wants everyone to love their service. That is why Comcast implements "Quality of Service". VOIP wouldn't be possible if Comcast did not do this, and subsequently everyone would switch to another provider. Comcast is a good company just trying to make people happy. Let's sue them. (idiots don't recognize sarcasm either)

Here's an idea, idiots. SWITCH THE DAMN SERVICE if you don't like it. What a novel idea?! f-tards. If you don't like "Quality of Service" then switch providers. And don't you dare give me this "but, but, but, I'm too stupid and lazy to find another service provider", because guess what, you are too stupid and lazy, but there IS another service provider.

And guess what else? AT&T was FORCED to do the government's bidding and put in their NSA tap line. You want proof? Knock, knock, who's there? The f-ing NSA that's who, now go ahead and say no? You are AT&T? Are you going to say no? Is no even a possibility after 911? AT&T is not so much asking the government for immunity, as much as the government is ensuring future telecom cooperation. You want to complain about privacy invasion? Here's an idea, blame the government that CAUSED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, and is still causing it. AT&T is just a victim, like us all. Except in my case, me... I'm a victim of idiots.

P.S. I love you all

[Darryl Snortberry]

right on

i agree with you but socialism looks to be the future based on where the excitement is in the presidential campaign. hold on to your seats. people don't think about the end effects of these utopian laws and you're right, instead of blaming themselves for mucking things up in the first place they point the finger elsewhere and create more laws. it become a continual cycle until you're repressed and in need of a revolution.

[oconnmic]

"I've seen the future and it's murder"-L. Cohen

Look at China, Corporate States, that is the future.