The Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 was
approved by a vote of 20–13. It articulates concerns that have been
expressed by numerous consumer groups as well as content providers
including Google, Yahoo! , Amazon.com and Microsoft.
Such companies spend fortunes on hosting web content; they don't
want to pay new fees for users to access it. But that is a revenue
source that cash-strapped broadband providers are contemplating in
the US, forming plans that have been characterised as leading to a
'two-tier internet'.
Background
AT&T CEO Edward Whitacre sparked the controversy last
November. In an interview with Business Week he was asked whether
he was concerned about "internet upstarts" like Google, MSN, Vonage
and others.
According to edited excerpts from that interview, he replied:
"How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a
broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what
they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to
let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to
have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism
for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're
using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?"
He continued: "The Internet can't be free in that sense, because
we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google
or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for]
free is nuts!"
He subsequently clarified his position, saying that AT&T had
no intention of making any content unavailable to consumers. That
clarification failed to silence the critics and the so-called Net
Neutrality debate continued in earnest.
What the bill says
The new bill pre-empts and blocks the introduction of internet
tolls for content providers.
It states that broadband companies must provide their services
"on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions" such
that a company like eBay can provide its services over the network,
"free of any surcharge on the basis of the content, application, or
service". Providers cannot block or degrade access to content under
the bill and there are limited exceptions, such as allowing
priority for emergency communications.
And if a provider like AT&T prioritises or offers enhanced
quality of service to data of a particular type – the high-speed
delivery of video content, for example – the bill mandates that all
data of that type be treated equally, regardless of source, without
any surcharge.
Reactions
House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, who
introduced the bill, told The Wall Street Journal: "While the
technological dynamics of the marketplace have changed over time,
the threat of dominant firms abusing their market power to restrain
competition has not."
Unsurprisingly, major providers have voiced their
displeasure.
Christopher Wolf, co-chairman of the Hands Off The Internet
coalition, which counts AT&T and Alcatel among its members,
said the vote was "more about politics than substance."
"Even Members who voted for this bill said they had reservations
about doing so, and only voted for it because of committee
jurisdictional concerns," he said. "But what Congress needs to keep
in mind is that the typical Net user doesn't care about
jurisdictional disputes among Congressional committees. They DO
care about paying more for Internet access and that's what this
bill would do."
He added: "The fact is that internet neutrality regulations
would be a direct financial hit to consumers and stop cold the
country's progress in providing affordable high-speed options."
Verizon executive Tom Tauke also attacked the vote.
"Simply put, net neutrality legislation endangers both the
future of video choice and the accelerated broadband investment
that is just beginning to gain traction," he said.
He warned that radical net neutrality proposals "would chill the
investment climate for broadband networks, deter and delay
broadband rollout, and lock in today's internet architecture and
levels of performance."
"Now is not the time to adopt new regulations that throw sand in
the gears of the fast-growing and changing broadband marketplace,"
said Tauke.
The Institute for Liberty, a public policy group that exists to
promote "principles and policies of honour" said the bill
"threatens to smother the internet in a sea of unneeded regulations
all in the name of the contrived 'network neutrality.'"
"Today's vote will be remembered as one of the saddest days for
the internet as we know it," it said in a statement.
Meanwhile, the Free Press, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation
of America, Media Access Project and US PIRG, will welcome the
result.
In a joint statement issued shortly before the vote, the
coalition of consumer groups said: "A growing alliance in Congress
recognises that Network Neutrality is not a partisan issue, but one
of grave importance to anyone who wishes to see the internet remain
an unrivalled environment for innovation, civic participation and
free speech."
Professor Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web,
discussed net neutrality in a press conference at the 15th
International World Wide Web Conference in Edinburgh on
Tuesday.
"What is very important from my point of view is that there is
one web," he said. "Anyone that tries to chop it into two will find
that their piece looks very boring." Expressing his hope that the
US would "come to the right decision," he pointed out that, in
Europe, net neutrality "is the norm."
