Net Neutrality Supporters See Late Gains on ‘Grassroots’ Effort
Recent movement of pro net-neutrality language on the Hill shows what happens when policymakers “really get to think about it” without being pushed by carriers, said Public Knowledge Pres. Gigi Sohn, speaking at a press conference of the bills’ proponents on the eve of several key hearings this week. Speakers said preserving neutrality rules is extending current practice, not imposing undue regulation.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Meanwhile, the House Commerce Committee video bill with its net neutrality language will be on the floor after the Memorial Day recess, Committee Chmn. Barton (R-Tex.) told reporters Wed., predicting an overwhelming vote in the “275- 300” range. The bill takes the right approach toward net neutrality because it doesn’t attempt to define it, he said. Any effort to define it “is doomed to fail,” he said: “I don’t see any other committee pulling a rabbit out of the hat,” an apparent reference to the Judiciary Committee bill.
The Internet works best “when consumers control what they see online,” said Alan Davidson, Google’s D.C. counsel. He said letting neutrality protections slip away would put broadband carriers in a position where they were picking winners and losers. He called the legislative action of the past few weeks encouraging “progress,” adding the Snowe- Dorgan (S-2917) and Sensenbrenner (HR-5417) take different approaches but are both acceptable because they “preserve the baseline protections” sought by neutrality proponents. Media Access Project Pres. Andy Schwartzman said the support for net neutrality protections is bipartisan and “extends to all kinds of users.”
Those proponents aren’t big corporations trying to manipulate lawmakers, as carriers have charged, Davidson said: With or without the provisions, “we'll do fine.” He said the issue from Congress’ point of view “is really about the next Google and the next Amazon,” which won’t be able to afford fast lane access and will therefore face a too-high barrier to entry.
The notion that large content carriers don’t pay is one of 2 things that “drive me crazy,” Sohn said. Google, Microsoft, Amazon and the like pay “billions” for their Internet presence, she said. The 2nd insanity-inducing factor, she said, is the notion that net neutrality would be “regulating the Internet… it’s about regulating the on- ramps.” Regulating access -- rather than services, e- commerce, or specific technology -- is something the govt. has indisputably done “for a hundred years,” she said. Bill McClellan, Electronic Retailers Assn. dir.-govt. affairs, agreed: “Nothing concerns our members more than having a gatekeeper between them and their customers.”
The telcos are trying to push legislation through to get video franchises, Sohn said, “and we can’t let that happen.” Several speakers highlighted the “grassroots” support among their members: Craig Aaron of Free Press said there has been “a groundswell” of petitioning and calling congress among group members and supporters; Wigen, a policy analyst for Educause and Internet 2 said neutrality provisions are “very critical to the nonprofit world” and that MIT, U. of Mich. and U. of Wash. “are huge content providers” with significant interest in keeping Internet access equal; Lynne Bradley, dir.-govt. relations, American Library Assn., said “we know from our library users that there is strong grass roots support all over the country.”
Sohn said the interest of both Judiciary Committees was a big help to neutrality proponents, because it lent an air of seriousness to their concerns about potential antitrust behavior. “If net neutrality were really no big deal,” like the Bells claim, she said “we wouldn’t be here” having this debate.