Barton Broadband Bill Means ‘Cable-ization’ of Internet, Foes Say

Separately, big Internet content firms wrote Barton and Telecom Subcommittee Chmn. Upton (R-Mich.), saying the bill would “allow for such a fundamental change in the paradigm of the Internet that it would frustrate the reasonable expectations of the tens of millions of Americans who go online.” Amazon.com, eBay, Google, IAC/InterActiveCorp, Microsoft and Yahoo said the Internet “has driven the American economy… Consumers embraced the Internet because innovation was rapid and anyone could provide lawful content without interference or permission from those companies that control the networks.” That “hallmark” policy requires net neutrality principles that are “meaningful and enforceable” - - but those in the Barton bill “achieve neither goal,” they said.

By eliminating FCC rulemaking authority in content blocking or degradation disputes, the bill “actually goes further in undermining the Internet than the current law,” CompTel Pres. Earl Comstock said in the call: “This is really a gigantic step backwards.” The bill could lead to the “cable-ization” of the Internet, practically encouraging network providers to close off areas of content from consumer access unless they're paid to carry them, said Electronic Retailing Assn. Govt. Affairs Dir. Bill McClellan. “Not only did consumers lose today, but so did schools and universities,” the traditional hubs of innovation, said Internet2 Vp-External Affairs Gary Bachula.

The adjudication process given exclusively to the FCC wouldn’t be reviewable in court, Media Access Project Exec. Dir. Andrew Schwartzman said. Violations would be handled case-by-case, increasing the inefficiency of FCC decisions, so future violations are more likely, Comstock said. Another provision in the bill, requiring the Commission to conduct and submit to the Commerce Committee a study 6 months after the bill’s enactment, showing whether its broadband policy statement is being followed, is “totally ridiculous,” said Public Knowledge Pres. Gigi Sohn. The Bells can simply behave themselves for 6 months, not interfering with content and VoIP providers’ traffic, and then treat that traffic however they want after the FCC submits its study, she added.

The FCC’s antiblocking decision in the Madison River VoIP case is no longer controlling on the Commission, speakers said. Madison River was forced to leave alone Vonage traffic because as a wireline provider it was regulated under Title II -- but the FCC’s reclassification of DSL as an information service, regulated under Title I, negated that network neutrality principle, said Consumer Federation of America Research Dir. Mark Cooper. “There’s nothing here [in the bill] that says that an Internet provider can’t block, discriminate,” or do anything, Sohn said.

Asked if they preferred the broadband policy enforcement section to be dropped from the larger Barton bill, Cooper said “there’s no way to separate the video platform [in the franchise section]… from the Internet platform,” since all networks are converging to IP-based services. The bill deals mostly with franchise relief for the Bells but is really about rolling out new broadband technology, Sohn said: “We see this as a great vehicle for a robust net neutrality provision.”

The bill wouldn’t pass “the way it is now,” Sohn admitted. Asked how likely it was that Senate Commerce Committee Chmn. Stevens (R-Alaska) would introduce a bill that substantially mirrors Barton’s, Cooper said that’s up to Stevens. But “with an issue this important you have to treat each draft with significance,” and Barton has rushed this bill through, he added. It’s not that relevant that House Speaker Hastert (R-Ill.) has endorsed Barton’s bill, as he has been inclined to support the Bells on various issues, Comstock said.