From Public Knowledge blog

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/176

Congressional Net Neutrality Events

This will be a busy week for Net Neutrality on Capitol Hill. The fun starts at 5 p.m. on Tuesday, when the House Telecom Subcommittee officially kicks off the mark up of telecom legislation.

The evening session will be devoted to opening statements, in which the members will stake out their priorities. The real legislative work will start the next morning, Wednesday, at 10 a.m. At that point, they will get down to actual amendments and changes to the draft bill. If necessary, the mark up will carry over to Thursday.

Also this week, the House Judiciary Committee may hold a hearing on Friday on market power of telcos and Net Neutrality. Officially, the hearing will be by the Committee’s Task Force on Antitrust, which happens to have all of the committee members on it. If the House is in session, the hearing will be at 10 a.m. And if there is a hearing, witnesses are expected to be PK Board member Larry Lessig, Earl Comstock from the Competitive Telecommunications Association, Paul Misener from Amazon and Walter McCormick from the U.S. Telecom Association (representing telephone companies). If they don’t hold it this week, it will be held after the Easter recess, which ends April 24.

"Update: Paul Kapustka reports that Senators Snowe (R) and Dorgan (D) will introduce a net-neutrality bill in the very near future, which will, as Paul quotes, "amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net neutrality." Clearly excellent news for the pursuit of a bi-partisan solution to this issue."

I'm wondering how this bill compares or relates with the Wyden bill also proposed.
Here's more about the Wyden bill. And this press relase from Wyden's web site.

(See actual article for inline links)

Net neutrality advances on Capitol Hill

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6057789.html

By Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com

Published on ZDNet News: April 4, 2006, 5:53 PM PT

A rift in Washington over Internet regulation is showing signs of mending, with a key politician signaling that stiffer federal regulation of broadband providers would be acceptable.

Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said Tuesday afternoon that the current version of his telecommunications bill that has been assailed by Internet and software companies on charges that it provided broadband providers too much latitude would be revised before a scheduled vote in the morning.

The replacement bill, Barton said, will give more flexibility to the Federal Communications Commission to address violations of so-called Net neutrality mandates. Net neutrality, also known as network neutrality, refers to the idea of the federal government forcibly preventing broadband providers from favoring some Web sites or video streams' connection speeds over others.

Barton said at a hearing that the revised measure, which was not immediately available, will "beef up the enforcement tools at the FCC's disposal to address violations," increase fines for violations and require the FCC to take action promptly when violations are alleged. It will be sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican who heads a telecommunications subcommittee.

This is something close to a flip-flop from Barton's earlier position. He told reporters last week that "I'm not convinced that we really have a problem with Net neutrality," and that most politicians don't have any idea what the term means anyway.

The compromise appears to be a way to pacify companies such as Microsoft, Google and Yahoo, which have complained that Barton's initial bill doesn't go far enough in forcing broadband providers to operate their networks only in ways approved by the federal government. Liberal advocacy groups including the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and the Consumer Federation of America wrote a letter on Tuesday saying the bill "simultaneously strips the FCC of its authority establish Net neutrality rules, leaving consumers exposed to anticompetitive tactics that will reduce competition and inflate consumer prices."

Rep. Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat, said he thought the details of the proposed complaint process were "sufficient" but don't go far enough to ensure "meaningful Net neutrality." He said he'd back an additional amendment during Wednesday's meeting of the telecommunications subcommittee.

Broadband providers aren't talking about blocking traffic. Rather, in an interview last week with CNET News.com, Verizon Chief Technology Officer Mark Wegleitner said his employer would like to offer ways to do things like offer faster services that would prioritize video content--but it would be economically viable only if the content provider could pay a fee.

Upton said his amendment would require the FCC to resolve such complaints within 90 days and would institute penalties of up to $500,000 per violation of its principles.

Along with Rep. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who serves as co-chairman of the House panel, and two other Democrats, Boucher says he is planning his own amendment. "If a fast lane is necessary, perhaps for video or gaming, then all applications of a similar kind from any content provider should be permitted in the fast lane without charge," Barton said.

Markey used Tuesday's round of opening statements to reiterate his concerns about what he claimed were gross inadequacies in the current bill's Net neutrality sections. "We will either vote to preserve the Internet as we know it or instead vote to fundamentally and detrimentally alter it," Markey said.

Separately, a pair of U.S. senators circulated a draft bill on Tuesday that would throw a weighty blanket of Net neutrality regulations over broadband providers. It's backed by Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican, and Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, and takes largely the same approach as a similar Senate bill introduced last month. [Here links to the article about the Wyden bill. -qb]

The draft bill says broadband providers must provide connectivity speeds "at least equal to the speed and quality of service" that the operator offers for its own content or that of its affiliates, and "make available the same bandwidth" to everyone.

CNET News.com's Anne Broache contributed to this report.

Will America continue to lead internet technology development or will we become a has been and let China and other countries lead the way in new Internet applications? That is how the question should be framed. Controlling the Internet experience will constrain development of many new and unforseeable kinds of applications to those who can pay. Those who can pay are big established companies. Big established companies cannot innovate. We need the bandwidth to go to people with the ideas. This attempt at controlling the internet is also an attempt to keep money out of the hands of upstarts who will upset the apple cart; even as the big corporations start recognize and adapt to change, change comes again and they cannot keep up. They want to profit from what they have. They want to slow the pace of progress; they are becoming a monopoly.

We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. - General Education Board Letter #1, 1906, Rockefeller Foundation.

Bill would profoundly change the Internet
- David Lazarus
Wednesday, April 5, 2006

Lawmakers in Congress are scheduled to vote today on a landmark bill that consumer advocates and some of the biggest names in the tech world say would change the Internet as we know it, creating fast lanes and slow lanes for Web access.

The issue of so-called net neutrality, as in network neutrality, is at the heart of legislation that represents the most sweeping overhaul of telecom law since the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The question is whether network providers like AT&T and Verizon should have the ability to charge some Web sites fees for faster access speeds -- and whether such a two-tier system inherently discriminates against any site that doesn't pony up extra cash.

It also has broader ramifications as the phone companies prepare to flood existing bandwidth with their own video services, potentially creating bottlenecks for other online content.

"The Internet could be fundamentally altered by this," said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., one of Congress' leading authorities on telecom issues and a ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's telecom subcommittee.

"The more people learn about this, the more they'll understand we're heading toward a system of informational apartheid," he told me.

Markey said Republican backers of the legislation -- titled the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006 -- are expected to prevail in today's subcommittee vote.

A vote by the full House is possible by June, and the Senate is likely to take up the matter shortly thereafter. The bill's chief sponsor, Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee, has said he expects President Bush to sign it into law by the end of the year.

There are other components to the bill. One would allow phone companies to bypass municipal approvals when rolling out video services (an exemption not offered cable providers). Another would allow cities to develop local wireless networks without first getting the OK from state officials.

But it's net neutrality that could end up having the most profound impact on the millions of people for whom the Internet has become a core part of their daily lives.

"The Internet has always been open and operated on a best-effort basis," said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a Washington digital-rights group. "That means no one's messing with all the bits. Everyone's bits get the same treatment.

"When the broadband provider inserts himself in the middle of this system, which is what this bill would allow, the provider becomes Internet God. He can determine which bits get priority and which ones don't."

It's not as though an entirely new (and faster) network will be built for well-heeled Web sites. Rather, the existing network will remain, but telecom providers will have the ability to determine which transmissions get where they're going more quickly and securely.

Seeking higher prices

The phone companies argue that they need to charge higher prices to companies that require more-reliable networks, or that are transferring unusually large files to customers, such as online movies.

"Our industry has stated that it will not block, impair or degrade consumer access to the Internet," Walter McCormick, head of the U.S. Telecom Association, testified before lawmakers last week.

Here's the problem: Let's say Amazon.com pays extra fees to have its site load faster on people's browsers. And let's say a smaller online bookstore can't afford the fees and thus its site loads more slowly.

Assuming book prices at both sites are comparable, which one will get more business over the long haul? Most likely, the one with better performance -- in this case, Amazon. The smaller upstart can't compete.

By the same token, would Google ever have caught on if it operated noticeably slower than other search engines? Would the next Google-to-be now being developed by some college student even have a shot if it can't afford toll charges for the Net's fast lane?

Warning about Internet

Last month, a consortium of some of the biggest names in the tech business submitted a letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee warning that "the Internet is at risk of losing the openness that has made it an engine for phenomenal social and economic growth."

"Consumers in the marketplace, and not network operators, should decide what content and services succeed or fail

," the letter said, adding that this "must be guaranteed by a meaningful and enforceable net neutrality requirement."

Companies submitting the letter included Amazon, eBay, Google, Microsoft, TiVo, Yahoo and dozens of other top tech outfits.

The legislation now before lawmakers has been stripped of more- stringent requirements submitted by Democratic politicians. The bill would allow the Federal Communications Commission to decide disputes about Web access only on a case-by-case basis, not as a matter of broad policy.

It would also prohibit the FCC from writing any new net-neutrality rules in the future.

Markey said the final draft of the bill is the result of aggressive lobbying by phone companies.

"This bill is of, for and by the Bells," he said. "It basically gives AT&T and Verizon everything they want."

The phone companies have responded to such criticism by repeatedly insisting that they have no intention of blocking access to any Web sites or worsening anyone's performance.

"AT&T will not block access to the public Internet or degrade service, period," Ed Whitacre, the company's chairman, told an industry conference in Las Vegas last week.

But he and other telecom execs also maintain that they see nothing wrong with some content providers paying a premium for reliable service -- and, by inference, for everyone else to accept less-than-optimal network reliability.

"If someone wants to transmit a high-quality service with no interruptions and 'guaranteed this, guaranteed that,' they should be willing to pay for that," Whitacre told an interviewer in January.

Google called freeloader

A few days later, a top Verizon exec said content providers like Google are freeloading off the phone companies' networks.

"The network builders are spending a fortune constructing and maintaining the networks that Google intends to ride on with nothing but cheap servers," John Thorne, a Verizon senior vice president, told an industry conference.

"It is enjoying a free lunch that should, by any rational account, be the lunch of the facilities providers," he said.

Representatives of AT&T and Verizon were unavailable to comment further.

irst off, the phone companies don't own the Internet. Without all that content on the Web, all they'd have is a bunch of wires awaiting phone calls (and no steady profits from monthly DSL charges).

Moreover, net neutrality has never been about blocking people from certain sites or services -- that's a red herring.

Net neutrality is about ensuring that all denizens of cyberspace have access to the same thoroughfares, and not relegating some content to country lanes while preferred data zips along the turnpike.

It's about ensuring that no sites or services are discriminated against -- by providers or consumers -- simply because they can't afford special treatment

.

Sohn at Public Knowledge said the Internet's growing pains could be solved by the phone companies increasing broadband capacity, creating room for their new video services and everything else that traverses the electronic ether.

"But if they build bigger pipes, nobody would pay extra for faster access," she observed. "With bigger pipes, every site has faster access. The providers have no incentive to build out their networks."

And so we approach an era of two-tier Net access -- high-speed haves and have-nots.

"The Internet isn't the be-all, end-all of everything," Sohn said. "But it is the most democratic medium the world has ever known. Everyone has an equal voice.

"That's about to change."

David Lazarus' column appears Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays. Send tips or feedback to dlazarus@sfchronicle.com.

Page C - 1
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/04/05/BUGNEI3E4U1.DTL

Making net neutrality a partisan issue is not the right approach and I applaud you for avoiding that stance. What needs to happen here is not a measure or examining the issue as either in favor of the people or business, but to ask ourselves if it is really the best approach to ask Congress to enter the debate. As former FCC chair Powell pointed out at F2C, it's easy to get regulation on the books, but very hard to remove. For the sake of the internet and its future, please do not be motivated to let Congress ruin it for all of us.