WASHINGTON-Network neutrality has emerged as a key sticking point in the debate regarding a scaled-backed communications draft bill-tentatively dubbed the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006-released by the House Commerce Committee late last month.
Network neutrality generally refers to the ability to run any lawful application or connect any lawful device to the communications network. For content providers, it means not being required to pay pipe owners to have their content carried or given priority.
The legislation is being pushed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House Commerce Committee, after negotiations with leading Democrats on the committee broke down.
The House draft contains a network-neutrality provision, but only allows the Federal Communications Commission to adjudicate disputes-not regulate network neutrality.
Several Internet companies with wireless ties signed a letter last week expressing concern about the network-neutrality provision.
The House Commerce Committee draft “would fail to protect the Internet from discrimination and would deny consumers unfettered access to the tremendous scope of content, applications and services that are available today on the Internet and will be developed in the future. This bill would allow for such a fundamental change in the paradigm of the Internet that it would frustrate the reasonable expectations of the tens of millions of Americas who go online,” according to a letter signed by Amazon.com, eBay Inc., Google Inc., InterActive Corp., Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc. “The Internet has driven the American economy and productivity for the past 10 years because it enables innovation without permission.”
In addition to the letter, several public-interest and consumer groups held a press briefing last week blasting the bill.
“This legislation does not just do nothing. It does something. It restricts the FCC’s rule-making authority,” said Andy Schwartzman, president and chief executive officer of the Media Access Project. “This is a terrible piece of legislation.”
Advocates like the Media Access Project argue that a specific network-neutrality law is necessary. On the other side, telecommunications and cable companies insist that since a problem does not exist, a law is not necessary.
Last August, the FCC issued a broadband policy statement that included network-neutrality language. The draft bill would allow entities that fear those policies have been violated to complain to the commission. The agency could not turn its policy statement into a specific regulation.
The House Commerce Committee draft focuses on video franchising, but does not address some key areas of telecommunications reform.
The measure does not address universal service or federal pre-emption of wireless telephony. It would require Voice over Internet Protocol providers to offer enhanced 911 services, but would not give VoIP providers or public-safety answering points liability protections.
“The measure does not contain any universal-service provisions, which we believe is key to any bill’s being approved by the Senate,” wrote Stifel Nicolaus & Co. in a note to investors. “The 34-page draft is much less sweeping than previous committee drafts of 70 pages and 77 pages on broader telecom reforms for the broadband/Internet age, though it does also contain provisions that address (in less detail) broadband network neutrality, VoIP 911 interconnection rights and duties, and municipal broadband. It does not contain new regulatory categories that the previous draft had on `broadband Internet transmission service’ (BITS) and `broadband video services.”‘
The draft bill is essentially a rewrite of existing laws governing the cable industry to allow wireline telephone companies, especially AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., national franchise authority.
Three additional areas of the bill include the network-neutrality adjudication provisions, obligations to provide VoIP E-911 and a prohibition against states restricting municipalities from offering broadband.
Last May, the FCC required VoIP operators to provide E-911 service by the end of November. Many did not make the deadline. One roadblock is the lack of liability protection that wireline and wireless carriers enjoy and PSAPs have when handling wireline and wireless 911 calls. Previous VoIP E-911 legislation contained the liability protection.
