WASHINGTON, DC -- Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has introduced a bill called the Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006 (S 2360). The bill, also known as the “net neutrality” bill, would prohibit network operators from assessing charges that give some content providers better access than others or blocking its subscribers from accessing content.

The bill, which comes at a time when AT&T has announced plans to buy BellSouth for $67 billion -- a major consolidation that would create a telecommunications giant -- is intended to ease growing fears that open Internet access may be blocked or compromised by the Bell phone carriers and cable operators, creating tiers of service, fast-track and not so fast. Indeed, pressure is mounting from major telecommunications companies - including BellSouth, AT&T and Verizon - for Congress to adopt legislation allowing exactly that kind of two-tiered Internet. What the major carriers want is to be able to charge service and content providers for express delivery of their data over the fast tier.

Consumer groups and Internet companies like Google and Amazon contend that any move by the network operators to levy fees for premium delivery service would harm Websites that are unwilling to pay for faster delivery. The idea violates the concept of “net neutrality,” which essentially means that all data, once it is out on the Net, is treated equally.

For technical reasons outlined in an article by TMCnet Associate Editor Patrick Barnard, Wyden’s bill will need some “tweaking” before it is ready for serious consideration. One problem is that the language of the bill, which states that network operators "shall not interfere with, block, degrade, alter, modify, impair, or change any bits, content, application or service transmitted over the network of such operator," inadvertently takes away the ability of network operators and service providers to engage in non-discriminatory activities which “prioritize” packets of data in order to deliver better signals to customers.

From Patrick Barnard, YMCnet, 3/8/06
And from Ken Belson, the New York Times, 3/6/06
And from The Progressive Review, 3/7/06

CAMBRIA SENDS MORE TESTIMONY TO SENATE

WASHINGTON, DC -- First Amendment attorney Paul Cambria, General Counsel for the Adult Freedom Foundation, has provided supplemental written testimony on the problems of protecting children on the Internet to the U.S. Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. In January, Cambria went boldly into the committee lion’s den, taking advantage of an opportunity, rare in recent years, for a representative of the adult entertainment industry to testify at hearings that could well lead to new legislation. (See X-Press report “Industry Representative at Senate Hearing,” 1/20/06)

In his supplemental testimony, Cambria clarified that he had misunderstood a question from Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) and had responded to Pryor in a way that made it appear that Cambria was not opposed to Internet user age verification. In fact, Cambria does not agree that Internet age verification is a practical or effective solution at this time, a view that is widely shared by representatives of the adult Internet, including FSC.

After clarifying that point, Cambria went on in his supplemental testimony to build a case for the use of filtering software by the end user as a more effective solution, citing comments by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. ACLU, (re the Child Online Protection Act) and Congress’ own Commission on Child Online Protection, which concluded that end-user filters are more effective than age verification requirements.

Cambria also mentioned a point not made at the January hearing, namely that many adult websites already self-rate for use in conjunction with popular filtering software programs, many of them through the Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA) which operates a free self-rating system that meshes with popular filtering systems.

Cambria, who recently attended an ICRA roundtable, said that he had met with ICRA representatives and with filtering experts, and had discussed an even more aggressive industry self-rating system. He said those discussions continue to develop and he said he would be happy to give a progress report to Chair Ted Stevens (R-AK) and the Committee. In the meantime, social conservative groups are reportedly angry over the “failure” of the committee to allow a vote on the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which Senator Stevens has so far bottled up in the committee.

From Thomas J. Stanton