"I think we're now ready to work on a final draft," Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) said, following testimony from a panel of industry executives, academics, media activists and even the National Guard, all taking their last official shots at shaping a bill aimed at streamlining the video franchise process as well as addressing numerous other issues from the broadcast flag and unlicensed wireless devices to the DTV transition and even reducing phone rates for soldiers stationed abroad. Link
Update [2006-6-14 12:10:22 by periphrastik]:
Link to SaveTheInternet - Please Take Action
S 2686, "The Communications, Consumers' Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006", is the premier Net Neutrality legislation. It is the Senate version of COPE, which passed in the House lacking Net Neutrality provisions. As of the revised draft released June 9, S 2686 has no Net Neutrality regulation and only calls for five studies over five years on the issue. (See page 144, line 8) Yesterday, the committee held its third and final hearing on the bill. It is to be marked up in committee on June 22. There are other resolutions on Net Neutrality floating around, but most are unlikely to pass unless we can tack them onto a larger bill, like S 2686. If S 2686 does pass without Net Neutrality legislation, we will be facing an uphill battle to regain a neutral internet policy.
Stevens, sponsor of the legislation and infamous for the pork-barrel Bridge to Nowhere, is maintaining his rep, getting paid off by "[t]elecommunications, media and [i]nternet conglomerates seeking regulatory relief from the Senate Commerce Committee".
The largesse is notable because Stevens, who is drafting the most comprehensive overhaul of telecom laws in a decade, is not up for re-election until 2008. "The election cycle never stops for an industry that cares about its business in Congress," said Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics.
--snip--
Stevens received $130,750 from the industry during the period covering 2005 and the first third of 2006 -- substantially more than he garnered from any other sector, according to the nonpartisan PoliticalMoneyLine -- a Web site that tracks campaign finance and lobbying data.
In addition, the passage of this bill could dramatically empower Republicans to set telecom policy
alone and in secret, according to a May 7 article in the AJC:
Instead, they want the House and Senate to pass separate bills, regardless of how different they may be. The final version would be negotiated, largely in private, by about a dozen senators and representatives on a conference committee.
The Senate just needs to pass "anything to get us into conference," where the real decisions will be made, House telecommunications subcommittee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said Tuesday at a telecom forum hosted by National Journal's Technology Daily.
"It's not supposed to work like this," said Celia Wexler, vice president for advocacy for Common Cause, a government watchdog group. "It's appalling that you can hear a member [of Congress] say that in public."
Watchdog groups say that while most conference negotiations are closed to public view, lobbyists continue to influence the members and their staffers, sometimes even supplying language that ends up as the law of the land.
--snip--
In her "nightmare scenario," the House-Senate conferees would kill neutrality protections and vote on final legislation after the November election, during a lame-duck session of the expiring 109th Congress. Without having to worry about angering voters, "the unholy child that would emerge" could be very favorable to industry, she said.
Since COPE has already passed since the writing of that article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, S 2686 is the final puzzle piece in the `nightmare scenario'. In addition, Net Neutrality is practically impossible to pass alone because of the moneyed interests involved. Tacking it onto a huge bill like S 2686 may be our only hope.
A good synopsis of Network Neutrality and the Stevens bill from Wetmachine
Stevens goes further than the House Bill (COPE) in stripping the FCC of authority. The House Bill stripped the FCC of any power to create network neutrality rules, limits the FCC to enforcing its rather vague Broadband Policy Statement by case-by-case complaints. (The four principles: consumers should be able to access all legal content, consumers should be able to use all legal applications and services of their choice, consumers should be able to attach any device to the network that won't harm the network, and consumers should be able to enjoy competition.) COPE also appears to endorse charging third parties for "premium" access to subscribers (what I call "Whitacre tiering," after AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre who first popularized the concept).
Apparently, this is just too much gosh-darn government interference and heavy handed regulation for Senator Stevens. The Stevens Bill removes the ability of the FCC to even adjudicate complaints about violations of the "four principles" contained in the Broadband Policy Statement. In other words, if an broadband ISP tells you "sorry, no using Vonage, but you can use our VOIP product," or "no attaching an Apple wireless router to our network because we have an exclusive deal with Cisco to use only Lynksis," Senator Stevens thinks that's just fine.
Instead, under the Stevens Bill, for the next five years, the FCC's only job will consist of writing an annual report to Congress about "the developments in Internet traffic processing, routing, peering, transport, and interconnection." The FCC will also describe how these developments impact the "free flow of information over the public Internet, business relationships between broadband service providers and applications and online user services, and the development of and services available over public and private internet offerings."
And, lest the FCC get any ideas, the report "may not recommend additional rulemaking authority for the Commission." So even if the Commission report finds something wrong, the best it can do is recommend "appropriate private enforcement mechanisms."
A report published by Free Press, Consumers Union, and the Consumer Federation of America details the idiocy behind arguments for network discrimination:
The likely harm to consumers and the Internet economy if Congress abandons "Network Neutrality" will be substantial, according to a new economic analysis released today by Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America and Free Press. The report rebuts the claims of Net Neutrality opponents such as Vanderbilt University Law Professor Christopher S. Yoo and the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies, finding that the benefits claimed for abandoning the principle of standardized, open communications network are small or non-existent. "Since network neutrality has succeeded so dramatically in producing the vibrant Internet economy and sustaining competitive communications services," said Trevor Roycroft, the economist who authored the report, "critics must show very tangible benefits from changing that policy. These analyses do not even come close to meeting that burden." The report argues that Yoo and the Phoenix Center have reached erroneous conclusions based on biased theoretical perspectives and faulty assumptions that do not fit the economic reality of Internet-related markets.
The three groups submitted the report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in advance of its latest hearing on major telecommunications legislation. "The proponents of network discrimination get the policy problem exactly backward," said Mark Cooper, director of research for the Consumer Federation of America. "They say we should not risk imposing Network Neutrality for fear of stifling competition and innovation. Yet it is Network Neutrality that has given us vibrant competition and innovation. The question Congress should be asking is why abandon network neutrality and risk destroying the Internet?"
Linky goodness - good read
The Judiciary Committee is making noises about jurisdiction as well, in my opinion just looking to get their palms greased by the conglomerates.
Also please check out Wetmachine's Net Neutrality Primer - no, I'm not affiliated with him/her/them in any way but it's a good crash course.
NB: all emphasis within quotes is mine, except for Wetmachine. Also, I have no idea what constitutes fair use so I've sourced everything. Please check the sources for info.
I will be posting another update after the markup session on June 22, and more as events warrant.