Dorgan, Snowe Introduce Net-Neutrality Bill
By Ted Hearn -- Multichannel News, 1/9/2007 6:34:00 PM
Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced a bipartisan bill Tuesday that would ban cable operators, phone companies and other providers of broadband Internet access from engaging in discriminatory management of their networks to the commercial disadvantage of Web-based providers of content and applications.
The Dorgan-Snowe bill resumes the so-called network-neutrality debate from last summer -- a period when major telecommunications legislation collapsed in the Senate over whether it was necessary to protect Internet giants like Microsoft, Google, Yahoo! and eBay and their customers from potentially discriminatory conduct, such as the intentional blocking or slowdown of unaffiliated services that hadn't paid to use additional network capacity.
Such discrimination would “fundamentally change the way the Internet has operated and threatens to derail the democratic nature of the Internet,” Dorgan said in a prepared statement with Snowe.
"Today's reintroduction of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act marks another step toward ensuring that the fate of the Internet lies in the hands of its users and not the hands of a few gatekeepers," Snowe said.
AT&T executive vice president of federal relations Tim McKone said the bill would deter, rather than promote, the deployment of high-speed-data networks.
"We continue to believe that net-neutrality regulations are unwarranted and remain hopeful that lawmakers will pivot their efforts toward support of a national priority to deploy more advanced broadband to more Americans more quickly," McKone said.
“We continue to believe that regulation of the Internet is unnecessary and will only stifle the investment, innovation and creativity that has been the hallmark of today's dynamic broadband marketplace,” National Cable & Telecommunications Association vice president of communications Brian Dietz said in a prepared statement.
In late December, the Federal Communications Commission approved AT&T's $85.5 billion merger with BellSouth after the company volunteered to comply with net-neutrality mandates for the next two years.
Dorgan and Snowe said the bill would require broadband providers to "operate the network in a nondiscriminatory manner, but [they] would remain free to manage the network to protect the security of the network or to offer different levels of broadband connection to users."
In another provision, the bill would mandate that consumers have the right to purchase a "stand-alone broadband connection that is not bundled with cable, phone or voice-over-Internet-protocol service."
Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) -- who are expected to battle for the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination -- signed on as original co-sponsors of the bill.
-
The Constitution of the United States does not guarantee an Internet. The presence or absence of the Internet cannot be tied to our right to free speech as the basis of federal legislation. Net Neutrality "protects everyone". Protects them from what? Publicly owned companies borrow capital and invest it in building their networks. In doing so, they take the risk that they can, in the future, earn revenue to pay back that investment and pay a return to their stockholders. They own their networks (which are the Internet) and have the right to establish fair rates for its use. I really don't want the federal government and its hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats "protecting" me from some "imagined" danger of the free market operating.
Marc Jennings - 1/10/2007 10:54:00 AM EST -
In my interpretation (maybe I missed something) is that the justification presented by AT&T and others was leading to a "double dip" since uers already pay for the broadband connection (either at our homes and at the business locations), therefore at both ends of the pipe (which also covers the expenses of the "middle pipes". Moreover, if let alone, the "pipe" owner could discriminate the "little guys" and move back/towards to a monopolistic Internet.
M Rossi - 1/10/2007 10:49:00 AM EST -
From the article:
"... major telecommunications legislation collapsed in the Senate [last summer] over whether it was necessary to protect Internet giants like Microsoft, Google, Yahoo! and eBay and their customers from potentially discriminatory conduct, such as the intentional blocking or slowdown of unaffiliated services that hadn''t paid to use additional network capacity."
I can''t believe that a writer for Multi-Channel News is this ignorant. Net neutrality may have the backing of "Internet giants" but it protects everyone, large and small, who believes in and wants to exercise free speech. An open Internet made it possible for little guys to become what Google and eBay are today. Closing it down would mean today''s little guys wouldn''t stand a chance. Shame on you, Ted Hearn, for spreading misinformation. Rational arguments can be made against over-regulating the Internet, but please do so without misstating the facts.
John Hicks - 1/10/2007 12:43:00 AM EST -
I must have missed all the Internet abuses that led these politicians to conclude "Net Neutrality" legislation was essential. The Internet would not exist without the combined networks of service providers. The concept of "Net Neutrality" is collectivist and confiscatory in nature, and will interfere with the marketplace to create government decreed winners and losers. It's a bad idea.
Marc Jennings - 1/9/2007 4:20:00 PM EST
No related content found.
Featured Company
-
Telestream
Telestream products are used by the world's leading media and entertainment companies and corporations for transcoding and workflow automation. Telestream helps customers transform their media for multiplatform distribution to web, mobile, DVD, cable VOD, podcast and broadcast pl..more
VIEW ALL GALLERIES
