Network Neutrality Bill Dies in Committee

Why am I not surprised.

A US Senate panel narrowly rejected strict net neutrality rules on Wednesday, dealing a grave setback to companies such as Amazon.com, eBay and Google which had made enacting them a top political priority this year.

By an 11-11 tie, the Senate Commerce Committee failed to approve a Democrat-backed amendment that would have ensured all internet traffic is treated the same no matter what its "source" or "destination" might be. A majority was needed for the amendment to succeed.

This vote complicates internet companies' efforts to convince Congress of the desirability of extensive new regulations, especially after the House of Representatives definitively rejected the concept in a 269-152 vote on 8 June.

Republican committee members attacked the idea of inserting net neutrality regulations in a massive telecommunications bill, echoing comments from broadband providers such as AT&T and Verizon, which warned the rules were premature and unnecessary. Alaska's Ted Stevens, the committee chairman, accused his colleagues of "imposing a heavy-handed regulation before there's a demonstrated need".

What's more, Republicans warned, adding the regulations would imperil the final passage of the broader telecommunications bill, which is the most extensive set of changes since 1996. Nevada Republican John Ensign said: "This is absolutely a poison pill."

Democrats had rallied behind an amendment, adapted from a standalone bill they offered in May, which would have barred network operators from discriminating "in the carriage and treatment of Internet traffic based on the source, destination or ownership of such traffic". That could have prevented Verizon from inking deals to offer high-definition video and prioritising that on its network, for instance.

Wonderful. Let's move ahead with throwing taxes on Internet usage, and per mile user's fees, and access time fees. Next there will be a surcharge for accessing Google or Yahoo. But, hey, the Rethugs must know what their doing. Right.

Here's the Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act if you want to look at its present form.

Additionally, here is a discussion on Ted Stevens' "Internet Consumer Bill of Rights Act." Personally, I'm not impressed.

The new "Bill of Rights" would require the FCC to preserve "the free flow of ideas and information on the Internet;" to "promote public discourse on the Internet;" to "preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;" to "encourage investment and innovation in Internet networks and applications markets through a diversity of business models;" and to "promote deployment of broadband networks nationwide." It would also require Internet service providers allow each subscriber to "access and post any lawful content of that subscriber's choosing; access any web page of that subscriber's choosing; access and run any voice application, software, or service of that subscriber's choosing; access and run any search engine of that subscriber's choosing; connect any legal device of that subscriber's choosing to the Internet access equipment of that subscriber, if such device does not harm the network of the Internet service provider; and receive clear and conspicuous information, in plain language, about the estimated speeds, capabilities, limitations, and pricing of any Internet service offered to the public."

That is a lot of wording that ends up being very vague. Makes you wonder how the FCC will interpret that. The last sentence is just fascinating. I can't wait to see the fine print that the access providers dump to qualify that statement and still screw the end user. And I'm sure they won't charge you any more because of this.