from: Public Knowledge [1]
A Day At the Senate Commerce Committee
Submitted by Art Brodsky on June 28, 2006 - 9:40pm.
We hope by now you’ve heard the news, that the Senate Commerce Committee earlier today approved new telecom legislation, 15-7. Along the way, the pivotal Snowe-Dorgan amendment on Net Neutrality lost on a tie vote, 11-11, with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) voting with the Democrats. In baseball, a tie goes to the runner, but not here.
That result alone was a remarkable accomplishment, considering the overwhelming House vote against Net Neutrality. The momentum is gaining.
It’s important to remember that the bill is about more than simply Net Neutrality. Here’s the statement we issued earlier:
“Over the course of two days, the Senate Commerce Committee handed control of Internet content to the telephone and cable companies, and control over the design of consumer electronics to the movie and recording industries. In each case, big companies win, and consumers lose.
“In failing to approve strong Net Neutrality language, the Committee gave the telephone and cable companies something they have not had in the history of the Internet - a way to control what goes over the Net. They would be free to discriminate in favor of content in which they have a financial interest or in favor of those companies which can afford special new fees the companies charge. Under this regime, the telephone and cable companies would have no incentive to make any improvements to today’s Internet, on which consumers, innovators and small businesses depend. We are grateful for the strong support we did receive from the Committee members who voted for Net Neutrality.
“In approving the broadcast flag for video, the Committee extended the control Hollywood will have over consumers’ content that they lawfully receive. Under the flag, Hollywood, acting through the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will have a significant role in how consumer electronics are designed and manufactured. Once again, consumers will have their rights short-circuited when it comes to using their devices lawfully. Although the Committee did not approve content controls for digital radio, the language of the bill makes clear that one will eventually be enacted, if not by a stacked committee created by the bill, then by the FCC later on.
“Despite today’s events, Public Knowledge will continue to fight for a telecommunications bill that protects the rights of consumers to have access to an open Internet and to engage in lawful uses of copyrighted content.”
Considering the result in the House just a few weeks ago, the Senate committee vote is somewhat remarkable.
The debate on Net Neutrality was notable for a number of reasons. First, the byplay between the Senators on that issue and on Internet tax was biting. Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) gave a stirring defense of the Internet as job creator, engine of the economy, etc., when proposing an amendment to make the moratorium on taxing Internet access permanent. When it came to defending the content of the Internet in the form of Net Neutrality, he bailed, and the other senators, notably Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Cal.) called him on it.
Dorgan, of course, is a former state tax official who has consistently been on the other side of the Internet tax issue from Allen, but who has turned into a staunch defender of Net Neutrality.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) also emerged as a staunch defender of Net Neutrality. She took on Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who criticizes search engines for prioritizing advertising. Cantwell said that search engines pay lots for bandwidth as it’s their largest expense. Stevens had a hard time grasping that Net Neutrality was the law until last September when the FCC changed the rules. He said continually he was simply preserving what was in place. Several senators tried to remind him of the non-discrimination provisions of the 1934 Communications Act, but he didn’t get it.
It’s important to remember the other dynamics surrounding the bill. The Committee had some intense debate over build-out requirements for cable competitors before rejecting them, and over preemption of state regulation of consumer complaints for wireless services.
It’s a shame the broadcast flag issues weren’t more contentious.
Now the big question is what happens to the bill. We don’t know. No one knows. The fact is there are still lots of objections to the bill, and at this point there appear to be sufficient number of votes to keep it bottled up without coming to a vote. Stevens hinted he might try to construct a slimmed-down version that could win the super-majority needed, but no one at this point is optimistic.
They will think about it over the July 4 recess.