Internet Neutrality and Congress

There is a new bill running around Congress concerning Internet Neutrality. It was issued by Senator Cantwell and it is interesting in many ways. First it is a bit naive in its wording when describing the Internet. In many ways it appears to be written, from the techncal side, by someone who just took one of those executive courses on telecommunications. They got the jist of some of the words and enough just to be dangerous.

The key words seem to be:

A broadband Internet access service provider may not unjustly or unreasonably—

‘‘(1) block, interfere with, or degrade an end user’s ability to access, use, send, post, receive, or  offer lawful content (including fair use), applications, or services of the user’s choice;  

‘‘(2) block, interfere with, or degrade an end  user’s ability to connect and use the end user’s  choice of legal devices that do not harm the network;

‘‘(3) prevent or interfere with competition among network, applications, service or content providers;  

‘‘(4) engage in discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, service, or service  provider with respect to network management practices, network performance characteristics, or commercial terms and conditions;  

‘‘(5) give preference to affiliated content, applications, or services with respect to network management practices, network performance characteristics,  or commercial terms and conditions;  

‘‘(6) charge a content, application, or service  provider for access to the broadband Internet access  service providers’ end users based on differing levels  of quality of service or prioritized delivery of Internet protocol packets;  

‘‘(7) prioritize among or between content, applications, and services, or among or between different  types of content, applications, and services unless  the end user requests to have such prioritization;  

‘‘(8) install or utilize network features, functions, or capabilities that prevent or interfere with  compliance with the requirements of this section; or

‘‘(9) refuse to interconnect on just and reasonable terms and conditions.  

‘‘(d) REASONABLE NETWORK MANAGEMENT.—  

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this section  shall prohibit a broadband Internet access service  provider from engaging in reasonable network management.  

‘‘(2) REASONABLENESS PRESUMPTION.—For  purposes of this section, a network management  practice is presumed to be reasonable for a  broadband Internet access service provider only if it  is—  

‘‘(A) essential for a legitimate network  management purpose assuring the operation of  the network;  

‘‘(B) appropriate for achieving the stated  purpose;  

‘‘(C) narrowly tailored; and  

‘‘(D) among the least restrictive, least discriminatory, and least constricting of consumer  choice available.

There are so many holes in this set of statements that one could drive all the trucks that GM makes through it. What do the words mean? Litigation would ensue for decades while costing the consumer billions to pay for it while delaying any progress to the development of service.

The market will play this one out. There are tons of competitors and with wireless just peaking its head up with 4G, LTE et al, then just let the market work!