Mannderings

Net Neutrality or Regulating the Internet?

I've received several forwarded emails from friends about Net Neutrality and Government trying to regulate the Internet. Often, such emails end up being time wasters, hoaxes, or alarmist in nature. I heard a few things here and there in the news and saw a blog post or two. I finally decided it was time to do some actual fact checking, which turned out to be harder than I thought. The hulabaloo seemed to be over House of Representatives Bill 5252 (HR 5252), which web searching gave me at least three different topics for the bill--about oil production in protected reserves, about regulating communication, or about Fair Access to Clinical Trials. According to the House of Representatives official site, it is the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006." It's proponents say that it's about allowing competition to drive market innovation and getting government out of the way of the free enterprise system. It's detractors say it's about abandoning the so-called First Amendment of the Internet--equal access, and letting the big telecommunications companies (telcos) start charging for Internet use.

I've had a difficult time finding good information about why the proponents of COPE2006 think it's a good thing. What I can find is that telcos have been posing as bloggers, putting blatant untruths out there. There are several web sites that argue that the detractors of COPE2006 are trying to regulate the Internet, and there are so called grass roots campaigns (veiled telco fronts) to prevent the Democrats from having Government take over the Internet. That is simple misdirection with almost no truth to it whatsoever. What isn't apparent is if there is a reasonable argument in favor of COPE2006 as it currently stands. It seems to me that the Barton-Rush amendment is a non-answer to the problem and is tainted by Rush's financial interests (Chicago Sun Times revealed on 25 April 2006 that Rush had received over $1 million in campaign contributions from telcos).

The case for the detractors has grabbed the bloggers attention. They are campaigning for an amendment called net neutrality. It seems to be widely accepted that the current bill lacks protections and will allow ISPs and bandwidth owners to charge a fee for high speed passage. This would have the effect of blocking or severly limiting access to those who don't pay the fee (bye-bye YouTube and non-commercial video). Their case is well represented by a YouTube video (if you don't know what YouTube is, check out my earlier posting). Here's that video:

For more info on efforts to add a net neutrality amendment, see Save the Internet and Dissenting Views to COPE2006 from Commerce Committee House Democrats.
Can anyone tell me what the sponsors of HR 5252 (COPE 2006) say it will accomplish or what their motivation might be other than selling out to telco interests?
What do you think?

posted by Alan @ 23:58