Leahy and Matsui Take Aim at Paid Prioritization Deals
Congressional Democrats introduced bicameral legislation Tuesday that would end paid prioritization deals. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Calif., released the bill, attracting some industry pushback as well as praise from consumer advocates. After approving, on a party-line vote, a net neutrality NPRM last month that critics said would allow fast lines, the FCC now is looking into interconnection deals between ISPs and websites like Netflix (CD June 17 p2).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The bill text of the Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act of 2014 is four pages long, according to a copy Matsui’s office gave us. The bill would force the FCC to, within 90 days of enactment, pass rules that would “prohibit a broadband provider from entering into an agreement with an edge provider under which the broadband provider agrees, for consideration, in transmitting network traffic over the broadband Internet access service of an end user, to give preferential treatment or priority to the traffic of such edge provider over the traffic of other edge providers.” It would also forbid “a broadband provider, in transmitting network traffic over the broadband Internet access service of an end user, from giving preferential treatment or priority to the traffic of content, applications, services, or devices that are provided or operated by such broadband provider, or an affiliate of such broadband provider, over the traffic of other content, applications, services, or devices.”
The bill wouldn’t affect any rules related to “the needs of emergency communications or law enforcement, public safety, or national security authorities,” the text said. Original cosponsors are Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., House Commerce Committee ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Communications Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif.
People want an Internet where “the best ideas and services can reach consumers based on merit rather than based on a financial relationship with a broadband provider,” Leahy said in a statement. “Our country cannot afford ‘pay-for-play’ schemes that divide our Internet into tiers based on who has the deepest pockets,” Matsui said. “We both have jurisdiction,” Leahy told reporters of Senate Judiciary and Commerce oversight of the bill. He plans a field hearing on net neutrality in Vermont next month.
If Leahy is “for leaving net neutrality exactly the way it is, I certainly will” back the measure, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., told reporters at the Capitol Tuesday. “I want it open, available for everybody. That’s not just me, it’s the 1934 Telecommunications Act [that] requires it.” Rockefeller doesn’t plan a Commerce hearing on net neutrality “because the issue defines itself quite clearly,” or plan his own legislation on the issue, he said.
NCTA expressed caution in its statement on the bill. “The cable industry has consistently stated our support” (CD June 16 p7) “for sensible but clear rules which ensure that American consumers continue to enjoy an open and unfettered Internet experience,” NCTA said. It said “cable companies do not engage in paid prioritization and have every incentive to ensure that all consumers enjoy fast and robust Internet services. We are confident that Chairman [Tom] Wheeler can restore effective rules under the path that the Court suggested, and we will work with all parties to preserve consumer protections enforced by the FCC” and FTC.
The bill is a bad idea, Information Technology & Innovation Foundation President Robert Atkinson told us, pointing out that Congress doesn’t ban cereal companies paying for shelf placement in stores. “There are likely many companies selling ‘latency sensitive’ services online that would actually want to pay to ensure that their service is able to be used effectively by consumers,” Atkinson said. “Congress would be better advised to not jump the gun and wait until the FCC completes its process regarding net neutrality that Chairman Wheeler has initiated.” Atkinson believes the bill will do no more than reinforce Wheeler’s commitment to making sure any proposed net neutrality rules protect consumers and competition. He judges the odds of passage as “very, very low.” Lobbyists have long pointed to net neutrality as highly contentious on Capitol Hill, with lawmakers divided along party lines and thus unable to advance legislation.
Free Press is “pleased that members of Congress are speaking out against the dangerous practice of paid prioritization,” it said. Public Knowledge backs the legislation, which “sends a clear signal to the FCC that fast lanes and paid prioritization could endanger the internet ecosystem as we know it,” Vice President-Government Relations Chris Lewis said in a statement. The American Library Association, Future of Music Coalition and Writers Guild of America, West also back the bill.
Leahy and Matsui “prudently focused their legislation on the problems arising from the power that Internet access providers have to arbitrarily charge edge providers for priority local or ‘last mile’ delivery capacity,” said Computer & Communications Industry Association President Ed Black in a statement. “If Internet Providers can extract unjustified tolls for interconnection where congestion and degraded service results at least partly from their own network’s lack of capacity, meaningful open Internet access will be threatened.”