Manage updates with the Download AppJune 27, 2006 4:00 AM PDT
Perspective: Why Net neutrality means more federal regulation
See all Perspectives
- Related Stories
-
Net neutrality showdown
January 2, 2007 -
An Internet for the few or the many?
June 27, 2006 -
Senate panel proposes Net user 'bill of rights'
June 19, 2006
However, Net neutrality threatens to hold this needed reform hostage. This term has become a nebulous catchall for a number of competing public policy issues. To illustrate the current level of confusion: Neither the House Energy and Commerce Committee nor the Senate Commerce Committee could arrive at a conclusion of what Net neutrality really means. Senator Ted Stevens, R-Ark., rightly expressed his frustration that defining it was like "defining a vacuum."
Supporters of Net neutrality generally fall into three main categories. Some advocacy groups, like the Christian Coalition and MoveOn.org, worry that without explicit prohibitions in place, network owners could get away with blocking or degrading Web sites based on their religious or political content. Corporations, like Google, Yahoo and eBay, simply don't want to have to pay for high-capacity bandwidth their businesses might require for advanced services in the future. A third group believes the Internet should be managed with heavy-handed public utility-style regulation or government price controls.
In reality, the definition of Net neutrality boils down to the government telling network owners that they can't provide higher speed or more capacity for Internet sites or services that have different needs to serve their consumers. It would also restrict the ability of these network retailers to reduce costs to consumers by charging content providers differently based on their network requirements.
The bottom line: This unnecessary government regulation would discourage investments in broadband networks because it would give government control over them and limit the ability of Internet network retailers, such as cable, wireless, satellite and telephone companies to provide the highest quality and lowest price services to their customers.
Proponents of this regulatory bonanza say that without government interference, networks will block basic Internet services and Web sites to consumers. Yet this has not happened without federal regulation. Unlike the current video franchising problem, Net neutrality remains only a theoretical threat. Even a content producer such as Amazon.com, which is advocating for these new regulations, testified to Congress that a problem does not currently exist.
It would be commercial suicide for any network provider to limit the ability of their customers to access any site or receive any service: Their customers would simply go elsewhere! Consumers have a growing number of choices of networks, and this competition will force networks to continuously upgrade their services. Federal regulation, on the other hand, would only reduce the quality and access of Internet services for all Americans.
In response to arguments raised by Net neutrality advocates, Chairman Stevens sought common ground by adding language establishing a "Consumer Bill of Rights" in the recently released third draft of the Senate telecommunications reform bill.
Although I will support the bill as currently drafted, I am concerned that this new language is still too prescriptive and will have unintended consequences. And it's a certainty that if we go any further toward regulation of the Internet, we risk the grave consequences associated with legislating in the dark; namely, driving away the investment needed to upgrade networks for the next generation of broadband services.
As this debate moves forward, we cannot allow the confusion raised by so-called Net neutrality to be the poison pill that prevents Congress from passing long-overdue telecom reform. We must not risk the future growth of the Internet and all the benefits that this reform would bring to consumers, by growing government regulation in the name of trying to fix a problem that does not now--and may not ever--exist.
Biography
Jim DeMint is a United States Senator from South Carolina.
See more CNET content tagged:
Net Neutrality, regulation, telecommunications, senator, Internet service
40 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
Personally, I am weary of any cute title (like "Net Neutrality") because what the BIG PRINT giveth the small print TAKETH AWAY.
I am also skeptical of people who are against everything and for nothing. Since I tend to be open-minded I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. So, if you could please elighten us a little - please do so.
Thanks for promoting FASCISM in a country that is supposed to
be about democracy. As Mussolini said, "Fascism is the merger
of state and corporate power." The state is supposed to
CONTROL corporations & keep them in check, not MERGE with
these very corporations and allow them to have unlimited
control over people's lives.
Sorry Jim, but this is one area where government regulation is
absolutely NECESSARY & REQUIRED.
Every single argument in your entire essay is poorly misguided
-- as if written by someone paid off by AT&T themselves. I
could spend the entire afternoon going sentence-by-sentence
through your entire essay, and show you why you are dead
wrong in every single statement you say, but I will just touch on
a few points for now.
The networks taking advantage of their customers & blocking
customers/websites/services is a WAY HIGHER THREAT (and
almost 100% GUARANTEED, based on published comments by
the heads of SBC Global & Comcast) than the threat of them not
being able to stay competitive.
You talk about this ability for customers to go ELSEWHERE?!
Nonsense, Jim! This is a blatant lie! This is not true at all! There
is no truth to this in even the slightest! Where are the customers
going to go, Jim?? You tell me! Thanks to your party who
deregulated the cable & telephone industries, customers have
ZERO CHOICES in the Internet market. Customers have the
choice of ONE cable Internet provider in their homes (if they're
lucky) and they have the choice of ONE DSL provider in their
homes (if they're lucky) -- most customers don't even have both
of these choices... they have to choose whichever ONE Internet
service comes into their households. So tell me, Jim... where
else are the customers going to go? I'll be eagerly waiting for a
response from you.
You talk about public utilities being managed with heavy-hands?
Yes, Jim, that's EXACTLY what should happen here. THANK GOD
public utilities are managed with heavy hands, because it
ensures that I get reliable electricity, reliable running water, and
reliable gas service at a reasonable price -- and that I get it on a
daily basis. Do you ever hear ANYBODY complaining about the
electricity or gas that they get at their house? Meanwhile,
Vonage customers are ALREADY COMPLAINING IN DROVES that
Comcast is purposely degrading the quality of their telephone
calls and they have proof of this.
You say that corporations don't want to have to pay for high-
capacity bandwidth that their businesses might require in the
future? Oh really, Jim? That couldn't be further from the truth.
In fact, NOT ONLY ARE THEY ALREADY PAYING for their Internet
access and bandwidth on their end, but every single customer is
ALSO paying for the Internet access on THEIR END as well. The
network providers are already making the profits on BOTH
SIDES... and now they want to make even more.
Jim, the Internet is SUPPOSED TO BE a media which gives all
humans equal access to the creation & exchange of information.
What you're suggesting is equivalent to how the television
industry is run now: only a few very rich & very select people can
create television shows and get them on the air. (This, in itself,
is a violation of the fact that the people themselves actually own
the public airwaves, but that's a completely different story.)
By allowing the Internet to become like the television industry
will only allow one goal to rise to the surface: The ability for
people like YOU to control what we see, hear, and think. And
wouldn't that be wonderful, Jim? For you to be able to try to
control the minds of the American public even more than you
already do.
The Internet is the ONE-AND-ONLY last bastion of truly free
thought in America, and now you're trying to take that away
from us, too.
Thanks, Jim, for being a fascist and promoting fascism in our
country.
- Scott Rose
do not have his so called "choice" of network providers? Like Scotty
321, I could go sentence by sentence and destroy his comments.
He obviously is just posting a staff written piece without a deep
understanding of the issue.
So fair enough right? More money in the ISP's pockets will allow better service to customers. But customers are already paying for broadband, and content providers are already paying for hosting. So ISP's are essentially asking permission to put extra tolls up on existing and future roads.
The real concern for Net Neutrality advocates is that these extra tolls will limit the ability of small businesses to compete on the Internet. Every major Internet company started as a small start-up. If ISP's have their way, only the large companies that can afford the tolls will be given access full access to the customer. This destroys the open market of the Internet by creating a middle man between the customer and the content creator.
If it was a simple debate, it wouldn't be dragging on for so long. The situation becomes clearest when you look at who's making the arguments. Pro net neutrality parties are the folks who are currently doing business on the Internet and have innovated the technologies that we use every day. The anti-regulation parties are the ISPs who are looking to make money. Politicians are going both ways, but that's expected.
Listen to the experts:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144" target="_newWindow">http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060623-7127.html" target="_newWindow">http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060623-7127.html</a>
Google pays for ALL of the bandwidth they use. They don't pay flat fees for the bandwidth they use, and if they do, then the telco's allowed themselves to be backed into a corner. They can renegotiate contracts when they are up.
Why is it that the the telco networks were built with public money and now they don't have to pay franchise fees? Cable Co's received very little public money to build their networks and had to negotiate franchises and now the Telco's walk in and get another free ride?
The reality is the Telco's want to provide TV service now, and they want to be able to make sure their own products get preferential treatment. That is fine for the "last mile", but not for the backbone.
Research the issue yourself, see what the Telco's are saying in public, not what they PROMISE you will happen. Their PROMISE is not worth the $200 George Bush bill a fraudster tried to pass recently. I am tired of big corporation promises that allow them to laugh all the way to the bank. I don't even get dinner or a kiss good night!
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.freepress.net/news/16173" target="_newWindow">http://www.freepress.net/news/16173</a>
Only he seems to forget, there are about a gazillon Search engines to choose from; If you are lucky you have 2 choices for broadband (cable and DSL).
Neutrality. Read what he has to say here:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144" target="_newWindow">http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144</a>
two words: packet sniffing
got it now?
oh, i guess i'm supposed to "trust" the telecos to be fair,
balanced, and honest...
just like fox news....
lolz
Yes MS or google wouldn't want this if it applied to them, but I can't think of many other business that have such a obvious monopoly (the Telcos) where they can change the nature of the internet with one fell greedy swoop. Regulation is necessary where monopolies exist; monopolies are the antithesis of free market. When I have 4 or 5 REAL choices of high speed broadband, then we won't need Net Neutrality. Because no provider would Dream of such a blatant cash grab. Until then we do!
things.
He says, "On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee will
vote on the contentious issue of "Net neutrality," a positive-
sounding yet destructive idea that would allow the government
to regulate away the future of the Internet."
Just replace "government" with "telecom companies" and then
you have an accurate statement.
I also love that uses the excuse that "nobody knows what net
neutrality is, so it's obviously a bad thing"
You'd think a United States Senator would be smart enough to
do the research...oh wait...that's wishful thinking.
What this really boils down to (in my opinion) is that telecos are
******** their pants over municipal wireless (which they've fought
every step of the way) and want to secure new revenue sources
to sustain their out-dated business models.
Pure and simple greed.
Wonderful.
Good thing Senator ****** Bag is giving us half the story. Thanks, C-Net, for putting him on without a rebuttle.
As it stands, consumers and dot-coms each pay for bandwidth over the Internet, regardless of the source or destination. Every packet is paid for on either end of its trip from content provider to consumer. Each type of customer pays for "Internet access," which means access to anyone else who has also paid for "Internet access." The danger is that service providers will distort the definition of what is and isn't Internet access. If a dot-com wants a fairly consistent stream of bandwidth, they don't just want Internet access, the service provider says, they want StreamDirect, with a guaranteed maximum lag and priority over standard Internet traffic over the provider's network. But on the other end, the customer is just paying for the old "Internet access." It isn't immediately apparent to customers that they are really getting less because content providers are being squeezed.
The solution I see is to regulate only the marketing of "Internet access," or any other terminology that is understood to be equivalent. If a customer pays for a 6 mbps connection, than those 6 mbps must be agnostic as to the other end of the connection. There should be no prioritization by type, source, or destination of any traffic to or from an Internet customer. If ISPs want to sell customers 2 mbps of StreamDirect, that's fine. Content providers can offer higher quality services over StreamDirect to customers who want to pay for them. StreamDirect can use the same modem and look the same to the customer's computer or LAN. But, the bandwidth must be kept separate. The non-Internet service cannot be bundled with the Internet service, and one service cannot borrow bandwidth from the other. Without the last two rules, an ISP could still put pressure on content providers who want access to the ISP's "Internet access" consumers.
Competition is a wonderful thing, and I strongly support open markets. But broadband companies, many with tremendous market share at the consumer end, have the power to wield semi-monopolistic power over content providers. Without a modicum of regulation in the broadband industry, not in the way its businesses are run or its routers are constructed but in the disclosure of the nature of the product to the customer, we will see a weakening of competition and innovation in the Internet as a whole.
"As it stands, consumers and dot-coms each pay for bandwidth over the Internet, regardless of the source or destination. Every packet is paid for on either end of its trip from content provider to consumer. Each type of customer pays for "Internet access," which means access to anyone else who has also paid for "Internet access.""
My only "legislative" addition to this would be: No Internet access provider can determine what kind of packages are exchanged and/or adjust service quality depending on the package type.
Problem I see in this comment is that it allows someone to say that the "Internet access" of some type is not the "Internet access" (but, say "StreamDirect"). Reason: providers would focus on building and charging for that "other" type of "piping" as it would be more profitable. End result: typical, ordinary customer would get less as opposed to the completely neutral Internet where the competition would ensure that whoever provides the cheapest price for given "pipe"/speed wins...
Only criterium allowable for the price structure of the Internet access of any kind should be the speed that it guarantees to the customer and which customer must be able to test at 100% 24/7.
No heavy govt. regulation needed and the market deciding in the end in fawor of the customer.
Telco's/cable claim that they can't do this profitably or innovate? Outright lie. All over the world (from S.Korea to Sweden) people have cheaper and many times 1000 times faster access than the typical USA customer. If it is possible there, it should happen here and if it did, there wouldn't even be a need for "StreamDirect" - everyone would have performance beating it by default with doors wide open for innovation.
1.) The telco's will be able to save the consumers money by passing the cost onto the content companies.
*wana make a bet? Economics 101, the cost will be passed onto the consumer wichever way this falls. If the telcos do not get thier way, Not likely they have had you guys bought and paid for for a while now, they will raise rates, all 3 telcos that affect pricing anyway.*
2.) Consumers have more choices now than ever... I hope you just didn't think before you spoke. lol We have less than ever.
Verizon = Pa Bell
at&t = Ma Bell
Comcast
Time warner + AOL
Sprint = don't make me laugh.
What other major choices do we have? The major Telco's provide the Lines to the Mom and Pop telcos' so there is no fix in moving to them. With the Mergers of this decade there are less companies than after Ma Bell was broke up.
Surely you knew that.
Now here is the last kicker. It might be hard for you though. It is common Sense, The telco's have droped Millions lobbying this. So much in fact they have the Lobbists firms on the hill locked up. I bet you got a nice little pad there hu Jim!!! I am going to bet they will want a return on there money. Ivan Signburg Like Money and dosen't spend easily, Nor does ole Eddy boy at at&t. Somehow, I doubt this will help me at all.
If Google Buys 2 OC48 pipes They should get 2 OC48 pipes. Why does it matter what is on them? Or is this the deal to offset thier cost to blanket the nation in broad band?
Since you probably don't have a clue on this issues and were told how to vote and what to say, I will drop it here. Thanx Jim. Keep you job in polotics, you have no future in technology.
'...Senator Ted Stevens, R-Ark., rightly expressed his frustration that defining it was like "defining a vacuum."'
Last time I checked, Ted Stevens is a senator for Alaska, not Arkansas. I guess Senator DeMint does not proof read the dribble that his aides write on his behalf....or the aides do not proof read the Senator's writings to prevent him from stepping on his crank.
As for the whole net neutrality issue...If you leave it to the corporations, you are screwed...If you leave it to the politicians, you are still screwed.
Big corporations, in the short term, will get their way. Prices will go up, competition will go down and content will be controlled or squelched. When people finally yell loud enough that the politicians can no longer avoid the issue, they will act. And we the consumer, will be still be screwed, but we might at least have the option of dinner and/or a kiss before we are bent over again.
I wonder what I could buy for $50k in US dollars. Senator, I would like for you to vote in favor re-writing the last line of the national anthem to say... "Its your home, if you're paaaaid."
Your check is in the mail.
Why Can't CNET put up a score board or something showing this stuff about their OpEd writers, both Pro and Con Net Neutrality.
I think it helps the "debate" when we know exactly who is really speaking, in this case Telco's. (like we didn't know that already)
I've spent some effort & time getting the dirty details on Mr. DeMint's political contributors. Warning: you may find this frustrating & upsetting.
I've spent some effort & time getting the dirty details on Mr. DeMint's political contributors. Warning: you may find this frustrating & upsetting.
said: "Corporations, like Google, Yahoo and eBay, simply don't
want to have to pay for high-capacity bandwidth their
businesses might require for advanced services in the future".
Lies, lies, and more lies... every major corporation already pays
thousands upon thousands of dollars per month if not per day
for their bandwidth, and if they want more, *they have to pay for
it*. Advanced features?! Bandwidth is bandwidth, you twit! It
makes absolutely *no difference* what the hell goes across the
routers and cables!
Net neutrality simply means that everyone pays the same
amount of money for the amount of bandwidth they use, and
telcoms can't charge popular sites more just because they're
popular and owned by successful corporations; the same way I
don't get charged more than my neighbor for property taxes if
more people visit me than him. Telcoms just want to squeeze
money out of prominent corporations for whatever reason they
can make up; of course, if Amazon has to pay more to the
telcoms for their bandwidth, guess who ends up footing the bill
when they raise prices to compensate? US! Your constituents!
BRILLIANT!
So, as you're bald-faced lying here, it's rather apparent that
you've been bribed with donations or whatever. I'm from
Georgia, and it's sad to see a politician from a neighboring state
so obviously corrupt. But, then, you're a Republican; surprise,
surprise!
issues..
Providers will make tons of money with or without regulation
because, as many of you have pointed out, there already exists
trusts and monopolies/duopolies. Their embedded
infrastructure is already protected (thanks to the republican
house and senate) from competition and they already have
"tiered" service levels. ("Business" users pay nearly four times the
price for nearly identical service.. for example)
Here in Las Vegas I can get cox cable or sprint dsl. period. yes
there are some "resellers" of sprints copper and bandwidth, but
the service is essentially sprint and ultimately sprint determines
end users price and service.
Cable providers are NOT required to open up their infrastructure
and while telcos are, the laws have softened and allow them to
make it severely unpalatable for resellers (they now have
precedent to change the laws as well..) and consider that the
biggies seem to even have the (lobbying) power to stop
municipalities (read: THE PEOPLE) from sharing their "territory"
and providing cheaper and better service for themselves !
So all this is a smokescreen, a rally-for-freedom that's already
vapor.
What IS at issue is that without regulation, without laws that
specifically prohibit the practice (there were temporary laws that
are now expired), the big corps can and WILL be able to control
the flow of content.
Think about it. Think about the implications on politics and
freedom and censorship and free speech and freedom of the
press when those corps (like ones that donated almost
exclusively to the bush agenda and have ALREADY given up
SOOOO much of our personal data) can control the flow of
information..
Because the internet IS information; unedited, uncensored,
actually By the people, for the people.. benefitting ALL the
people.
We've already seen the results of this in the last "election" when
certain broadcasting and reporting entities were able to control
content and give a decisive slant to certain points of view.
Besides the obvious ...
Sinclair Broadcasting refused to show anti-bush advertisements,
giving decided preference to pro-bush stories and adds..
the FCC (under right wing control) even prevented PBS from
showing children's shows that portrayed gays in a positive,
family environment.
Free thinkers (wether you like them or not is unimportant) like
Howard Stern and others were hammered into exile..
Adverts for the ACLU, Planned Parenthood NAACP were nearly
absent from the airwaves..
Fox news, well, need I say more...
And stories like the spying on Americans was "pressured" into
being withheld until AFTER the elections.
(Actually, MANY stories were withheld until AFTER)
But the INTERNET proved to be a far more formidable source of
both dispensing and receiving REAL information than
anticipated.
In other words, the powers controlled the airwaves and
displayed unconscionable bias in the flow of information. But the
INTERNET was, at that time, untouched, uncontrollable and free.
And THAT proved to be a far more frightening power than the
powers were and are willing to allow. And all of know that that
power is only growing and becoming MORE and MORE pervasive
in ALL of our lives.
Read 1984. Read about the rise of Hitler or any other
dictatorship.
The battle here is about controlling the FREE flow of information
on the internet. PERIOD
Internet Freedom Preservation Act (Introduced in Senate)
S 2917 IS
109th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 2917
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net neutrality.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 19, 2006
Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. LEAHY, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. OBAMA, and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net neutrality.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Internet Freedom Preservation Act'.
SEC. 2. INTERNET NEUTRALITY.
Title I of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`SEC. 12. INTERNET NEUTRALITY.
`(a) Duty of Broadband Service Providers- With respect to any broadband service offered to the public, each broadband service provider shall--
`(1) not block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person to use a broadband service to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, application, or service made available via the Internet;
`(2) not prevent or obstruct a user from attaching or using any device to the network of such broadband service provider, only if such device does not physically damage or substantially degrade the use of such network by other subscribers;
`(3) provide and make available to each user information about such user's access to the Internet, and the speed, nature, and limitations of such user's broadband service;
`(4) enable any content, application, or service made available via the Internet to be offered, provided, or posted on a basis that--
`(A) is reasonable and nondiscriminatory, including with respect to quality of service, access, speed, and bandwidth;
`(B) is at least equivalent to the access, speed, quality of service, and bandwidth that such broadband service provider offers to affiliated content, applications, or services made available via the public Internet into the network of such broadband service provider; and
`(C) does not impose a charge on the basis of the type of content, applications, or services made available via the Internet into the network of such broadband service provider;
`(5) only prioritize content, applications, or services accessed by a user that is made available via the Internet within the network of such broadband service provider based on the type of content, applications, or services and the level of service purchased by the user, without charge for such prioritization; and
`(6) not install or utilize network features, functions, or capabilities that impede or hinder compliance with this section.
`(b) Certain Management and Business-Related Practices- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a broadband service provider from engaging in any activity, provided that such activity is not inconsistent with the requirements of subsection (a), including--
`(1) protecting the security of a user's computer on the network of such broadband service provider, or managing such network in a manner that does not distinguish based on the source or ownership of content, application, or service;
`(2) offering directly to each user broadband service that does not distinguish based on the source or ownership of content, application, or service, at different prices based on defined levels of bandwidth or the actual quantity of data flow over a user's connection;
`(3) offering consumer protection services (including parental controls for indecency or unwanted content, software for the prevention of unsolicited commercial electronic messages, or other similar capabilities), if each user is provided clear and accurate advance notice of the ability of such user to refuse or disable individually provided consumer protection capabilities;
`(4) handling breaches of the terms of service offered by such broadband service provider by a subscriber, provided that such terms of service are not inconsistent with the requirements of subsection (a); or
`(5) where otherwise required by law, to prevent any violation of Federal or State law.
`(c) Exception- Nothing in this section shall apply to any service regulated under title VI, regardless of the physical transmission facilities used to provide or transmit such service.
`(d) Stand-Alone Broadband Service- A broadband service provider shall not require a subscriber, as a condition on the purchase of any broadband service offered by such broadband service provider, to purchase any cable service, telecommunications service, or IP-enabled voice service.
`(e) Implementation- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, the Commission shall prescribe rules to implement this section that--
`(1) permit any aggrieved person to file a complaint with the Commission concerning any violation of this section; and
`(2) establish enforcement and expedited adjudicatory review procedures consistent with the objectives of this section, including the resolution of any complaint described in paragraph (1) not later than 90 days after such complaint was filed, except for good cause shown.
`(f) Enforcement-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The Commission shall enforce compliance with this section under title V, except that--
`(A) no forfeiture liability shall be determined under section 503(b) against any person unless such person receives the notice required by section 503(b)(3) or section 503(b)(4); and
`(B) the provisions of section 503(b)(5) shall not apply.
`(2) SPECIAL ORDERS- In addition to any other remedy provided under this Act, the Commission may issue any appropriate order, including an order directing a broadband service provider--
`(A) to pay damages to a complaining party for a violation of this section or the regulations hereunder; or
`(B) to enforce the provisions of this section.
`(g) Definitions- In this section, the following definitions shall apply:
`(1) AFFILIATED- The term `affiliated' includes--
`(A) a person that (directly or indirectly) owns or controls, is owned or controlled by, or is under common ownership or control with, another person; or
`(B) a person that has a contract or other arrangement with a content, applications, or service provider relating to access to or distribution of such content, applications, or service.
`(2) BROADBAND SERVICE- The term `broadband service' means a 2-way transmission that--
`(A) connects to the Internet regardless of the physical transmission facilities used; and
`(B) transmits information at an average rate of at least 200 kilobits per second in at least 1 direction.
`(3) BROADBAND SERVICE PROVIDER- The term `broadband service provider' means a person or entity that controls, operates, or resells and controls any facility used to provide broadband service to the public, whether provided for a fee or for free.
`(4) IP-ENABLED VOICE SERVICE- The term `IP-enabled voice service' means the provision of real-time 2-way voice communications offered to the public, or such classes of users as to be effectively available to the public, transmitted through customer premises equipment using TCP/IP protocol, or a successor protocol, for a fee (whether part of a bundle of services or separately) with interconnection capability such that service can originate traffic to, and terminate traffic from, the public switched telephone network
`(5) USER- The term `user' means any residential or business subscriber who, by way of a broadband service, takes and utilizes Internet services, whether provided for a fee, in exchange for an explicit benefit, or for free.'.
SEC. 3. REPORT ON DELIVERY OF CONTENT, APPLICATIONS, AND SERVICES.
Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Federal Communications Commission shall transmit a report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives on the--
(1) ability of providers of content, applications, or services to transmit and send such information into and over broadband networks;
(2) ability of competing providers of transmission capability to transmit and send such information into and over broadband networks;
(3) price, terms, and conditions for transmitting and sending such information into and over broadband networks;
(4) number of entities that transmit and send information into and over broadband networks; and
(5) state of competition among those entities that transmit and send information into and over broadband networks.