Two senators, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota worked together to re-introduce a bill to the Senate. The bill was an identical version of a bill which had died in Senate the previous year and was known as the Internet Freedom Preservation Act. Although this had been an expected course of action, it was surprisingly quick to be re-introduced. When the internet and web first began to take form, the inspiration for the inventions was world-wide communication that was in the people’s hands and was not controlled by a single person or entity. The re-introduction of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act goes a long way to keep that dream ongoing. The idea of one entity controlling which websites should be given preference over others in terms of delivery time, also known as net neutrality, threatens the foundations that the internet and web are built upon. It allows corporations power over already popular websites in that they would charge those websites more money for faster speeds. In turn, younger or lesser-known websites would suffer because they would not be given priority.

Some time ago, the media highlighted this issue. Until certain corporations began to claim that they should be able to charge certain websites more money for faster delivery speeds, the issue of net neutrality was relatively unknown to a majority of the public. These corporations claimed that they should be able to collect the money that was to be earned by charging high-profile sites higher rates. However, as the issue has gained notoriety, and as such celebrities, various consumer communities and groups, and internet companies have vehemently spoken out against these companies’ desires, and they are supported by one of the founding fathers of what we know today as the web, Vinton Cerf. Cerf paved the way for this technology in the mid-1970’s with his creation of the TCP/IP, or transmission control protocol/internet protocol. These groups have begun campaigns in order to encourage to government to place federal regulations in order to forbid such behaviors. While the opposing side of the issue claim that any new protocols would impede progress of this still relatively new technology, supporters claim that without such rules, corporations could threaten the very ideals on which this technology was founded.

If the Internet Freedom Preservation Act were to pass, new rules would prohibit network operators from prioritizing online materials or services. They would also be forbidden from blocking consumer access to a network from an external device, unless it was for security or other high-necessity purposes. However, the act is not unopposed to prioritizing content on the web. As long as preferences are made for all media and material on the web that falls under the category in question, it is allowed. Still, these preferences must be made upon the group as a whole and charging fees for this service will become illegal is the legislation is passed. For example, if a specific internet provider such as Comcast wanted to create a line for all music content so that faster speeds would be available to consumers of those services, they are welcome to. However, The Internet Freedom Preservation Act would demand that all websites offering that content be allowed access to the line, and without a cost. This would prevent Comcast from charging specific music providers, such as Napster, a higher rate in exchange for priority speed to consumers.

The act being introduced by Snowe and Dorgan also addresses other topics different from net neutrality. It stipulates that companies that provide broadband service must also give their customers to option to purchase only broadband service, and not be tied in to take part in any of the other services the company offers. The FCC would be the government agency in charge of handling any problems or notifications that arise from consumers as a result of the legislation. Shortly before the issue became mainstream, the FCC accepted AT&T’s net neutrality proposal. This proposal was offered after AT&T merged with BellSouth. AT&T claims it opposes any laws that might be put in place to regulate net neutrality. Two conservative voters on the FCC have claimed that they do not plan on addressing the issue again, as opposed to their more liberal peers. As a result of the re-introduction of the legislation, AT&T and Verizon representatives quickly spoke out against the law.

The president of the communications lobbyist group, U.S. Telecom Association, claims that this legislation would ban companies from allowing specific interest sites, such as those centered around home health, financial monitoring, and entertainment and communication priority in delivery speeds. Senators Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Tom Harkin, Patrick Leahy, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all supported the re-introduced legislation. A Consumers Union senior policy analyst spoke out and claimed that the legislation would, in fact, allow all consumers regardless of class or financial status the ability to have affordable high-speed access to the Internet. That same language failed in passing the legislation the first time it was introduced. Chances are better this time around, however there is no definite victory or defeat yet predictable. House of Representatives Edward Markey has plans to re-introduce his own Net-neutrality-specific legislation, but like the bill facing the Senate, it was previously defeated and no clear result is yet in sight.

My opinion:

Personally, I think it’s important to protect the ideals on which the pioneers of the internet and web built their inventions. The best systems are systems in which not one (or even a few) entities control. The legislation ensures that the web continues to be relatively free to consumers. Internet-providing companies are wrong in saying that internet content devoted to health care or financial monitoring wouldn’t be given priority were the bill to pass. It would only ensure that all financial monitoring and health care-related sites are offered to consumers, and without a fee. The political aspects of who is supporting and who is opposing the acts is irrelevant. What is important to keep in mind is what is the right way to regulate this new technology. We must also consider how we can keep legislation relevant to a constantly growing and changing technology.