Net neutrality rules in stimulus trigger backlash

Open Internet
access rules added to the stimulus package threaten the tentative partnership
between technology and telecom companies, which have coalesced behind the
bill’s $6 billion funding for broadband access.

Conditions inserted
into draft legislation released by the House Appropriations Committee state
that companies applying for broadband grants must adhere to a 2005 policy
statement by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that says consumers
should access the Internet with no controls placed on their web traffic or
content. In addition, another provision calls upon the FCC to define what “open
access” to the Internet is within 45 days after the stimulus bill has become
law.

{mosads}However, the authority
granted to the FCC by the policy statement has already been challenged in
federal appeals court by cable provider Comcast. The company was penalized by
the commission when it found that Comcast was restricting certain web
applications used by its customers. There are also concerns over what type of new
restrictions could be established for Internet providers after a new FCC
definition of open access is put in place.

“We urge Congress
to refrain from adding conditions, qualifications or terms to its authorization
of broadband funding that might inadvertently inhibit the flexibility of the
president-elect and his new administration from being able to move forward
quickly on their goal of providing immediate funding to shovel-ready projects,”
said Tom Amontree, senior vice president of strategic communications and industry
affairs at USTelecom.

The telecom trade
association has heavily backed more funding for broadband and still supports
the recovery effort, said Amontree. But USTelecom lobbyists do plan to lobby
against the conditions placed in the stimulus.

Another potential
source of opposition to the conditions could be the cable industry. Like
Comcast, other cable providers have had concerns over what rules for open
access to the Internet — also known as “net neutrality” — could mean for them.

A spokesman for
the National Cable & Telecommunications Association declined to comment,
however, saying his organization was still reviewing the legislation.

Advocates for an
open Internet cheered the addition of the conditions to the stimulus. Many had
lobbied lawmakers hard to include such provisions.

“The fact that
House leadership decided to put such a strong condition on open access is very
significant,” said Ben Scott, policy director for Free Press, a public interest
group that focuses on telecommunications policy. “To me, this signals that we
are no longer talking about ‘if’ with net neutrality. It means we are talking
about ‘when’.”
“We didn’t want to see this as an open-ended program without some basic
consumer protections,” said Markham Erickson, executive director of the Open
Internet Coalition. “Essentially, it is current law. Plus, it is public
dollars.”

The coalition is
made up of several Internet companies, such as Amazon and Google, and many
public interest organizations, including Free Press.

Telecom and cable
companies have often argued that net neutrality restrictions would lead to
excessive government interference into the private sector by regulating what
has been an unrestricted Internet since birth. They believe new conditions
could hinder investment back into their own broadband infrastructure by raising
compliance costs.

But open Internet
advocates, like Erickson and Scott, believe the rules are necessary because
companies could restrict or limit web traffic without the knowledge of their
consumers. That could stall innovation as well as online commerce, lowering the
Internet’s potential for creating jobs.

“The open
Internet is probably the most successful job creation engine for the last ten
years. Why would you want to close that and end that job creation?” Scott said.
“Congress is being wise by building this network out and also keeping that
market open that has created jobs in the past.”

If the conditions
stay in the final bill, they could also present the first challenge to the
incoming Obama administration on net neutrality. The new president’s FCC would
have to define “open access.”

Julius
Genachowski, a Harvard Law School classmate of Obama’s and successful tech
executive, will reportedly be the new FCC chairman. Genachowski was a key
adviser for Obama’s tech policy.

On the campaign
trail for the presidency, Obama was the most aggressive of all the candidates
in formulating his tech policy. The then-Illinois senator heavily backed net
neutrality, differing from his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.),
but earning praise and support from Silicon Valley.