Net Neutrality and the Closed Door Telecom Bill

A couple of weeks ago, John Dowdell shared his concerns that the sudden rising conversation about Net Neutrality was based on fear and scant information. At the time I agreed with JD and for many of the same reasons. A lack of information and the hyperbolic language that was being used by the proponents of this new thing called "Net Neutrality". Even to those of us who follow web happenings pretty closely the rapid emergence of some new, what?.....standard? proposal? bill before Congress?.....well, it was a little difficult to follow what it was all about, and why I should care.

Turns out that there is some cause for concern, as the U.S. Congress is working on new telecom legislation. And why is it so hard to find any real information on what's going down? Turns out that the future of this bill and how content is delivered over networks in the U.S. is going to come down to only 12 members of Congress, as detailed in this Cox Newspapers syndicated story.

At issue here is how this bill will be passed into law. There won't be open discussions and the public won't have input into what is being crafted. In essence, the attempt is to get some kind of bill--any kind of bill--out of each house and into closed committee meetings where a cabal of lobbyists and activists will influence and seek to control the final outcome of the telecommunications law that goes before the full Congress.

Given past performances, it's likely that this bill would then sail through Congress and get signed into law during the middle of the night (metaphorically speaking at least). Lord knows George Bush hasn't met a bill yet that he wasn't willing to sign. All the better if it pleases lots of his true constituents--the wealthy and privileged and captain's of industry.

I don't consider myself an alarmist, but nothing about what's happening here sounds like a democratic process. And neither does this:

....so many persuasive and well-financed lobbyists are involved that they may battle themselves to a standstill, leaving Congress flush with campaign contributions but unable to agree on a final bill before adjournment.

"We're going to do all we can to put the citizens back into the process," (Celia Wexler, vice president for advocacy for Common Cause) said.

That won't be easy. The evolving telecom legislation is following a well-worn path that Congress often takes to craft spending, tax and other bills outside of public view.

Though Congress has held numerous public hearings on telecom issues over the past year, the legislation's details have been largely worked out in private. Several senators and their staffers have complained, off the record, that the process has been closed even to them.

To some, Congress' handling of an issue known as "network neutrality" illustrates the process.

Consumer advocates say that unless Congress spells out tough rules to ensure that providers of high-speed Internet service treat all Web sites and services in a neutral way, cable and phone companies will make content providers pay fees for quick downloads of their sites and services.

For example, if Yahoo paid such a fee, its search engine might work faster than Google's. Net neutrality proponents say that would forever change the free and open nature of the Internet, making it more like cable TV service where large companies choose what subscribers can see.

On Monday, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, revealed his 135-page draft bill after months of behind-the-scenes work. The committee is scheduled to consider the bill June 8, and the full Senate may vote on it before the August recess.

Stevens' legislation does little to preserve network neutrality. It calls only for federal regulators to prepare annual reports on the delivery of Internet services.

So the network neutrality issue really comes down to whether a provision should be specifically spelled out in this new legislation that will ooze its way out of our halls of government. I get that now.

But shouldn't we be more concerned about the way this law is being controlled by the industry itself, and the way that the process is being deliberately sent behind closed doors? As citizens shouldn't we be outraged that big money and its influence on Congress has gotten so blatant that this is how business does business before our representatives?

Or, maybe, we all just do like we've routinely done for the past 20 years or so--look the other way, sigh, and say that it's all just politics anyway and what does it matter?

PREV page

NEXT page