House committee votes down “network neutrality” provision

While approving a “video franchising” bill last week designed to create more competition among telecommunications and cable TV companies that provide Internet-based video services, the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce voted down a “network neutrality” clause designed to prevent telcos from building a system that would charge content providers fees for premium Internet transmission service. (See “Tug of War” in the May issue of Internet Retailer.)

But the battle over network neutrality is far from over, says Bill McClellan, director of government affairs for the Electronic Retailing Association. New legislation due to be introduced in the U.S. Senate as early as today by Olympia Snowe (R-ME) is expected to be more supportive of the concept by including language designed to prevent telecommunications companies from serving as gateways to Internet usage by charging new fees to content providers like online retailers and publishers, McClellan says.

Another bill, introduced by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-AK) and still in draft form, is intended to overhaul telecommunications laws to bring them into the Internet age. But a co-sponsor of the bill, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), says he will only support the legislation if it’s rewritten to support network neutrality.

Like the video franchising bill passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the Stevens bill leaves the Federal Communications Commission without authority to regulate telcos and the way they administer access to the Internet. “We cannot ignore concerns about the potential for discrimination by network operators, but the draft appears to do just that by failing to create enforceable protections that will ensure network neutrality,” Inouye said.

McClellan adds that the House Judiciary Committee has also said it intends to take up the issue of network neutrality. “I’ve never worked on a piece of legislation where there were so many proposals at once,” he says.