The House approved the most sweeping US telecommunications legislation in the past decade, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006, but it did not include an amendment for net neutrality.
The amendment sought to stop broadband providers from discriminating against or interfering with access to or quality of content on their networks. It was defeated by a 269 to 152 vote.
The defeat was a blow to some of the world’s largest Internet companies, including Amazon.com, eBay, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, which had rallied lawmakers to pass net neutrality rules.
We believe the house vote against net neutrality should be a wakeup call for anyone who cares about the future of the Internet, especially small businesses and consumers, said Alan Davidson, Google Inc’s Washington counsel, on a conference call with reporters.
The concern is that the absence of net neutrality laws would pave the way for a two-tiered Internet with a fast line for content from network owners, affiliates and customers; and a slow lane for everybody else.
If Internet companies were forced to pay a premium to deliver their content and services to users over a fast broadband network it would hamper innovation and entrepreneurship, as well as limit consumer choice, argued net neutrality proponents.
Supporters also said net neutrality laws were necessary to help keep down the cost of some Internet services, such as VoIP and content downloading.
But the phone and cable companies that own the broadband networks say they should be able to recoup the millions they invested in those pipes.
Cox spent $15bn in private capital creating our new digital interactive network and will continue to invest in the network so long as there is an incentive to do so, said David Edleman, spokesperson of Atlanta-based cable broadband operator Cox Communications Inc, in an email.
It’s not in anyone’s best interest to stifle further innovation and investment – and government regulation of an industry typically does, he said.
What’s more, Cox does not and will not block or slow access to any legal site on the web. Quite simply, it is not in our interest to do so, Edleman said.
Phone giant BellSouth Corp also issued a statement declaring it would not block or degrade access to any legal content on the Internet.
Net neutrality is a phony issue and it ought to be laid to rest by today’s vote, said BellSouth VP of government Herschel Abbott.
AT&T Inc, the phone company that was bought by rival SBC Communications Inc last year for $16bn, echoed its rivals.
The House bill would promote broadband deployment because it streamlines our ability to invest in fatter broadband pipes in communities across our territory, said company spokesperson Michael Balmoris, in an email.
The head of the US Federal Communications Commission Kevin Martin has taken the view that the absence of widespread abuse by broadband operators meant there was no need for net neutrality rules.
The White House supported this stance by issuing its own statement. Creating a new legislative framework for regulation in this area is premature, said the statement. The Administration believes the FCC currently has sufficient authority to address potential abuses in the marketplace.
The COPE bill empowers the FCC to enforce net neutrality principles and set fines for violations for as much as $500,000.
But net neutrality supporters contend this will do little to curb subtle abuses of power by broadband network owners, such as degradation of online services.
Nobody’s going to see that $500,000 fine because you know nobody’s going to block [broadband access], said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, which belongs to the pro-net neutrality It’s Our Net Coalition, on a conference call.
If it was just about blocking, I think there’d be much less of a concern, because those are easy to find and easy to punish. It’s the more subtle discrimination that is harder to find and is not addressed [by the COPE Act].
Google’s Davidson agreed: Being able to block somebody outright is not the only tool for control. And as higher-bandwidth services and content become more important, such as multimedia elements controlling who gets on the fast lane is tantamount to giving control, he said.
There also are precedents of infrastructure owners acting only in their best interests, said Earl Comstock, chief executive of Comptel, which represents communications service providers.
In the last 10 years, the cable companies have not let anyone on their network except by law. So we have demonstrated evidence that they are not going to engage in friendly behavior, Comstock said, on a conference call.
The US Senate is now set to vote on neutrality laws.
In the Senate I think there is perhaps a better understanding of the implications of network neutrality on innovation, on the Internet in terms of content and services, said Jeannine Kenney, senior policy analyst of the Consumers Union, on a call.
And I think there’s greater sensitivity to the gatekeeper problem in telecommunications generally.
The Senate was initially expected to begin its hearing on the issue on June 13, but it is likely to be later given that a draft of the bill had yet been completed as of Friday, June 9. To expect a Senate hearing before July 4 is ambitious, noted Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, on the conference call.
Google’s Davidson said noted that It’s Our Net Coalition does not have the same lobbying pull as the big phone and cable companies. We’re never going to match the army of lobbyists that our adversaries have, he said.
The Coalition expects to continue its grassroots strategy to pursue success in the Senate. Its strategy will be more of the same said Andrew Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project.
While some of the large phone companies recently ran TV adverts that attacked Google over its net neutrality position, Google has no plans to launch a mass-marketing campaign of its own.
We’re believers in online marketing, said Google’s Davidson. We will not be doing an advertising campaign at the magnitude that the telephone companies have been doing … honestly, we don’t believe this is an issue where we can buy support.
Google’s chief executive did post an open letter to Congress on its web site, which was also was posted on some Google blogs, Davidson said.
EBay e-mailed more than one million of its customers urging them to write to Congress in support of net neutrality laws.
But asked whether Google would consider putting a link on its homepage promoting the net neutrality campaign, Davidson said, I don’t think we believe, at this time, that people expect to see political messages on its homepage.
