Net Neutrality Face-Off Precedes New Senate Draft

Meanwhile, Sens. Snowe (R-Me.) and Dorgan (D-N.D.) plan to introduce their net neutrality legislation as an amendment to Stevens’ S-2686 at Thurs.’s scheduled markup if the amended draft doesn’t reflect changes consistent with their bill’s goals (WID May 22 p1). S-2917 is backed by Senate Commerce Committee co-Chmn. Inouye (D-Hawaii). Amendments to the telecom bill are due Mon. Amendments on buildout and redlining are among dozens expected to be offered on all aspects of the bill.

Too much attention is being paid to attempts at defining net neutrality rather than to solving the problem, Misener said. What’s at stake is preserving the openness that has been an essential touchstone of the Web’s evolution, Misener said. But McCurry said the issue must be defined for legal reasons. Without a clear consensus on what net neutrality is, attorneys couldn’t litigate and courts couldn’t interpret the measure, he said: “One person’s tiered pricing… is another person’s discrimination.”

There’s “nothing simple” about net neutrality language proposed in the bill sponsored by Snowe and Dorgan or in the failed House measure pushed by Rep. Markey (D-Mass.), McCurry said. Even though the Snowe-Dorgan bill is only 5 pages, it would trigger “a lengthy and very cumbersome effort by the FCC,” he said. The bill would bar broadband providers from blocking or degrading Internet content -- a pledge already made by major network operators, McCurry said. The Stevens bill asks only for an FCC study on net neutrality, but it also includes video franchise and universal service fund reform language.

“If this were a truly competitive environment among broadband access providers, we wouldn’t be here. The debate would not be necessary,” Misener said, but there’s “no competition” among network operators and “there isn’t going to be any competition anytime soon” for residential high- speed service. Consumers typically have a choice only between cable and DSL, and some places there’s only one broadband offering, Misener said: “Two is not competition in theory or in experience… There’s been nothing to indicate that these 2 competitors will compete in a way that will usefully substitute for longstanding competition rules.”

McCurry and Misener agreed on the inefficiency of antitrust law. “You need vigorous enforcement of antitrust law… and that hasn’t been the case in this Administration,” said McCurry, who was President Bill Clinton’s press secy. Misener, a former FCC senior legal advisor, agreed “there hasn’t been enough antitrust enforcement recently,” calling the process “extraordinarily slow.”

Whatever the outcome on Capitol Hill, net neutrality has made its mark on Washington, said Carol Darr, dir. of the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet (IPDI), who organized the event. The issue has “divided the city, employed 1/2 of K Street and inflamed the blogosphere,” she said. IPDI hasn’t taken a position on net neutrality. -- Andrew Noyes

* * * * *

The Wireless Communications Assn. (WCA) joined NetCompetition.org. “With spectrum a scarce and expensive resource, it is imperative that wireless broadband providers remain free to manage their own networks,” WCA Pres. Andrew Kreig said. He said a net neutrality mandate would discourage innovation and investment in more competitive broadband choices. WCA’s members are investing heavily in WiMAX and other types of next-generation broadband competitive alternatives, Kreig said. Net neutrality’s effect on wireless was briefly mentioned at the IPDI summit on Fri. McCurry said disagreement on what net neutrality covers obscures its impact on wireless providers. Misener said the current debate “doesn’t apply to the slow stuff on a mobile wireless device.” When broadband wireless is able to be a “true competitor” to cable and DSL, then it becomes part of the discussion, he said.