Save Access

from: National Journal, Congress Daily

Changes In Latest Senate Draft Bill Affect 'Net Neutrality,' Anti-Piracy

By Drew Clark

(Monday, June 19) Senate Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, made hundreds of changes to his third and latest draft of telecommunications legislation, aides said.

The biggest changes affect network neutrality and anti-piracy technology. On the controversial issue of network neutrality -- the notion that Bell telecommunications firms and cable TV companies should not be allowed to control Internet traffic traveling over their high-speed wires -- Stevens added a section dubbed the "Internet Consumer Bill of Rights Act."

It would require that "no Internet service provider engaged in interstate commerce may limit, restrict, ban, prohibit or otherwise regulate content on the Internet because of the religious views, political views or any other views."

Stevens believes the bill could have cleared the committee without making the changes in net neutrality or anti-piracy language, aides told reporters at a briefing. They said that Stevens had included the alterations in deference to committee Democrats, particularly Commerce ranking member Daniel Inouye of Hawaii and Sen. Barbara Boxer of California.

The committee has scheduled a markup session for this Thursday to vote on the legislation.

However, the latest draft failed to assuage Inouye, who released a statement charging that the new language "marks a further step backward for consumers, and it calls into question our commitment to passing a bipartisan communications reform package in this Congress."

Stevens' new approach to network neutrality is structured differently from language in a telecom bill -- H.R. 5252 -- that passed the House earlier this month. But the provision in Stevens' bill appears designed to accomplish a goal similar to the House measure by barring Bell and cable companies from blocking access to lawful content, Web pages, voice or video, or e-mail applications.

Those firms also would not be able to prevent the connection of legal devices that do not harm their networks.

Speaking of the latest net neutrality provisions, a committee aide said: "There are a lot of Republicans who hate this. They think we went way too far."

But many Democrats wanted to go further. "...The new draft's provisions on net neutrality utterly fail to protect consumers and preserve an open Internet," Inouye declared, adding:

"Under the current language, network operators will have the ability to dictate what the Internet of the future will look like, what content it will include, and how it will operate. In the absence of meaningful consumer protections, network operators will have the unfettered capacity to discriminate against unaffiliated online content, degrade their quality of service, or impose steep charges for prioritized traffic.”

The Bells and cable operators have insisted they would not block or impede the ability of consumers to access such sites. But they object to a stronger form of net neutrality restrictions that would bar charges for preferred businesses to get speedier Internet delivery. An effort to attach an amendment with language to this effect was defeated on the House floor earlier this month.

As with the House-passed measure, Stevens' bill would not prevent the practice of charging more for speedier Internet delivery. It also reflects the House language by calling for the FCC to adjudicate instances of blockage without empowering the agency to enact regulations on the subject.

It was not clear that Stevens' attempt at compromise would have its intended affect. Indeed, many technology companies seeking stronger net neutrality language voiced disapproval.

"Don't be fooled by claims of 'compromise,'" according to a statement from It's Our Net, a group led by such tech sector firms as Amazon.com, eBay, Google and Microsoft. "This latest Senate draft may be dressed up in a new outfit. But underneath, the language remains the Internet Bill of Wrongs instead of an Internet Bill of Rights that Internet users deserve."

On the anti-piracy issue, the new Stevens draft bill also includes an anti-piracy measure dubbed the "audio flag." If no private sector agreement were reached in 18 months to accept anti-piracy audio technology, the FCC would have to act.

Other changes to the bill include pre-empting state regulations governing the wireless industry, eliminating requirements that cable companies share sports programming with satellite operators, and increasing the revenues that municipalities may receive for video franchises.