|
Action:
Action is requested at this time to dueto expected upcoming legislation
Options:
Status/Summary:
Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) and Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), the chairmen of the House and Senate Commerce committees, each introduced bills in 2006 to update the Telecommunications Act which regulatesthe nation's phone, cable, Internet, television and satellite industries.
Representative Barton's bill, HR 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006, was the first to move and was approved by thefull House in June 2006. The Senate Commerce Committee then took up the House approved version of HR 5252 and amended it by replacing the contents of the House measure with the text of Senate Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens' Advanced Telecommunications andOpportunities Reform Act. The full Senate has not yet debated the bill as amended.
Senator Stevens has publicly acknowledged that he does not have the votes necessary to move the bill. As a result, it is possible that the bill may not be brought up during the post election session. If this is the case, a new bill will need to be reintroduced in both the House and Senate in the new Congress.
The major obstacle to Senate consideration is disagreement over the extent of prescriptive "net neutrality" language that should be included in a final bill. With no concrete basis for anticipating how broadband network providers may behave in the future, the topic is a divisive one even within the Internet technology community.
Traditionally, "net neutrality" has referred to the principles that have guided the development of the Internet. These principles have created a network that is open to all and allows any computer to send a "packet" of information toany other computer with minimal interference from the network. The network does not discriminate against particular hardware, software, underlying network, language, culture, disability, or against particular types of data (with some exceptions for quality of service and network security network practices). The Internet therefore has been "neutral" in its treatment of users and data.Background:
Congress is considering legislation to amend the U.S. Telecommunications Act. Among the issues being debated is whether there is the need to codify the "net neutrality" principles that have guided the development of the Internet to date and, if so, how extensive or prescriptive those principles should be.The idea of netneutrality is that the internet is open to all that are able to access it and that everybody able to access the internet has equal availability to services and information. These principles have guided the development of the Internet to date. Net neutrality principles calls upon designers of the individual networks that together make up the Internet, to create their section of the Internet in a manner that allows any computer connected to the network to send information toany other computer on the Internet with minimal interference. A network designed to be perfectly neutral does not discriminate against any other network or hardware, software, language, culture, disability, or types of data.
The outcome of net neutrality could impact the future functioning of the Internet. Proponents of regulation fear that if allowed to continue, the internet will become a utility that has various tiers of access depending on what services a user is willing and/orable to pay for. Opponents believe that the free market will continue to maintain the openness of the internet with greater expansion of possibility by private innovation. REALTORS® concerns are that there are not increased costs to real estate firms as they maintain their presence on the internet and work to expand their access to consumers.Both the House and Senate bills contain net neutrality provisions that identify a set of principles to whichinternet participants must adhere. The House bill gives the FCC the authority to enforce the FCC’s April 2005 Statement of Policy and Principles that spell out the Commission’s expectations of what rights the consumer has with respect to access to Internet sites and/or freedom to use services, applications, software and hardware of the consumer’s choice and the Commission’s authority to enforce that policy and principles. The Senate bill takes a different tack and explicitly spellsout in the bill the consumer’s rights to free net access and unobstructed use of sites, software, applications, and hardware of the consumer’s choice. The text of both bill’s neutrality provisions are attached to the Business Issues Committee agenda as an exhibit.
Pro:
So-called “net neutrality” proponents advocating for more extensive net neutrality language than is already included in existing bills argue that widespread broadbandcompetition does not exist. Most U.S. residents have the choice of only one or two broadband carriers. Without a net neutrality law, the fundamental openness of the Internet, with all voices having a chance to be heard, will be killed.
Additionally, there is no law preventing broadband providers from blocking competing content and services. Broadband providers do not have an economic interest in giving competing service providers access to consumers.
Broadband providers will be tempted to increase profits by signing lucrative contracts giving large e-commerce companies better speeds and quality of service. This will create a two-tier Internet where the richest Internet companies can afford to pay for the best service and everyone else is in the slow lane.
Without a law, startup Internet companies that can’t afford to pay premium prices will be stuck in the slow lane and may not be able to find an audience. Innovation will be killed andsmall companies won’t be able to compete.Those supporting extensive and prescriptive net neutrality language argue that without legislation, net neutrality will become a thing of the past. They point to statements made by some broadband CEOs that would seem to indicate that they believe that a June 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling allows them to modify their current business practices in a way that conflicts with traditional net neutrality principles. That "Brand X" decision ruled that broadband providers' DSL services were not subject to the "common carrier" rules that govern more traditional telecom services like phones and, therefore, did not have to make their networks open to competing Internet Service Providers.
Two broad categories of potential non-neutral practices often mentioned by proponents as likely to be common place if net neutrality provisions are not approved are (1) blocking access, slowing access or providing lesser quality of service to websites, applications or alternative networks that compete with the broadband provider's own websites or services and (2) instituting pricing structures, i.e. "tiers", for different levels of network access used by Internet application and service providers.
Proponents of net neutrality include a diverse group of Internet application companies (Google, Yahoo, eBay), consumer/civil liberties groups (Public Knowledge, Consumer Federation of America, American Civil Liberties Union), special-interest groups (Gun Owners of America, MoveOn.org, the Christian Coalition) and some Internet pioneers (Vinton Cerf , Tim Berners-Lee, and Craig Newmark).
Con:
Those who are opposed to more extensive legislative language argue that extensive net neutrality statutes would create a system of new, unnecessary and burdensome regulation on the Internet. It would be bad business for broadband providers to block or degrade Web content and services their customers now receive and want.
Broadband competition should be allowed to work. If one broadband provider were to block some Web content, competitors will seize the opportunity to woo that provider's customers to their more open system. Many of today's common network quality control protocols designed to deal with blocking spam or viruses, maintain the quality of VOIP or video applications, and maintaining network speeds would be prohibited by net neutrality proposals.
Broadband providers and many of the companies advocating for extensive net neutrality provisions want to be able to deploy new services, such as television over IP. In order to provide the capacity to do so, broadband providers will need to be able to assign this type of time-sensitive data toa tier of broadband service that doesn’t have to share “space” with everything else on the public Internet – your neighbor’s e-mail with five photos attached, a college kid’s streaming music service, people downloadingvideo clips from YouTube.com. Without a separate tier, broadband providers say they won’t be able to guarantee the quality of service that customers demand.
Broadband providers point out that without new source of revenue, efforts to build the next-generation of super-fast broadband networks will be delayed. Prescriptive net neutrality provisions would prevent a broadband provider from charging for preferential speeds and service regardless of the demands placed on the broadband system bya service or application provider.
Opponents of more prescriptive net neutrality language argue that to create a set of detailed net neutrality rules would (1) impose regulatory burdens on Internet service and content providers that will stifle innovation and competition, (2) ignore the competitive pressures that broadband providers face given customer expectations and demands, (3) prohibit many of the network maintenance/security practices necessary to insuring thatthe net works efficiently, (4) stifle the further development and expansion of broadband networks, and (5) shift the cost of future network development to consumers.
The ranks of the opponents include large broadband providers (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast), network equipment providers (Cisco, Qualcomm, Corning), free market think tanks (Competitive Enterprise Institute, Center for Individual Freedom) as well as special-interest groups (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, National Black Chamber of Commerce, Latinos in Information Sciences and Technology Association).
Impact on REALTORS®:
The outcome of this debate could impact the future functioning of theInternet. As such, some real estate practitioners have argued that it could also increase costs incurred by real estate firms as they work to maintain an Internet presence that is accessible to the greatest number of consumers.
Other real estate industry participants have argued that:
