Internet Freedom Bill Sparks New Debate on Net Neutrality

Edward Markey (D-MA) and Chip Pickering (R-MS) introduced the “Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008″ (H.R. 5353) bill last week, the most recent legislative foray into the net neutrality debate. The bill (pdf) aims to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to include language that would maintain consumer freedom to use the Internet for lawful purposes and preserve the open nature of broadband networks. It would also require the Federal Communication Commission to assess broadband services and consumer rights for violations of Internet freedom principles and hold eight public broadband summits across the country and to report the findings to Congress. The bill sparked positive reaction from consumer advocacy groups and net neutrality proponents while telecom companies and government watchdogs stood on the other side of the fence arguing against what they see as unnecessary government regulation.

Consumers advocacy groups, like Save the Internet, hailed the bill as “a blow to the gatekeepers,” lauding it for protecting consumers from discrimination by Internet providers and bringing the net neutrality debate outside the influence of corporate lobbyists and into an arena where the public–and not the cable and phone companies–decide the future of the Internet.  The proponents say the bill would maintain the open marketplace of the Internet where all information is treated equal. Some bloggers complained that the bill, which has the support of Google and Amazon, is a “watered-down” version of Markey’s previously stronger “net neutrality” bill which failed to pass through Congress in 2006. They bemoaned the lack of an enforcement provision or penalty for violating net neutrality as another example of legislators too afraid to confront telecom companies.

On the other side, telecom companies expressed concerns that this bill would introduce regulation that would not only stifle competition and innovation, but would threaten much-needed investment in expanding the network infrastructure. With less financial incentives to expand the infrastructure, they argue, consumers and tax-payers would essentially have to fund the expansion as public works.  While Representative Markey assured telecom companies that the bill “contains no requirements for regulations on the Internet whatsoever,” it did little to allay the fears of Scott Cleland, President of NetCompetition.org, who called the bill “a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ because it seeks regulation of the Internet under the guise of ‘Internet freedom.’” The organization, whose members include telecom giants such as Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, Qwest, and Time Warner Cable, goes on to say that the “net neutrality” debate is not even a political concern, but a “fringe issue and a factional business dispute.” Another telecom-funded interest group, Hands off the Internet, shared the same sentiments, claiming that current federal law already provides for an open Internet and the new bill would be “an expensive and unnecessary burden” on the FCC.

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste took issue with the bill over the proposed summits. They questioned what would be gained from the expensive studies, which would cover issues already addressed by the FCC during earlier deliberations.

Image credit: flickr.com/aaronw79

Tags: Internet, Net Neutrality, regulation

Comments on this article

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.