GOP Colleagues Press Sensenbrenner To Tone Down "Net Neutrality"

by David Hatch
Congress Daily AM
May 25, 2006

House Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner is facing pressure from some Republican lawmakers to tone down a telecommunications bill slated for a vote today in his committee.

At issue is Sensenbrenner's network neutrality legislation, which is designed to preserve the openness of the Internet and prevent telecommunications and cable giants from potentially acting as content gatekeepers.

But some Republicans on the committee worry the proposal goes too far to prohibit anti-discriminatory behavior. On the eve of the vote, Judiciary Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property Subcommittee ranking member Lamar Smith, R-Texas, was negotiating with Sensenbrenner on a compromise amendment that would remove many of the bill's regulatory restrictions, sources said.

Under the plan, the chairman's bill would stipulate that antitrust laws apply to Internet regulation. But it would drop provisions intended to prevent anti-competitive conduct by phone and cable giants because the language is viewed as too meddlesome, they said.

It was unclear at presstime whether Sensenbrenner would allow the amendment to be offered. A spokesman for Sensenbrenner was not aware of the developments. A spokeswoman for Smith said he "hasn't decided on what course of action to take."

One source noted some Republicans on the panel oppose the chairman's measure but are reluctant to vote against him. "Some feel like they're being asked to walk the plank," the source said.

Republicans are worried that Sensenbrenner's language imposes restrictions on broadband operators before any problems have been highlighted. They also are concerned about a provision that would bar network operators from charging companies for preferential treatment on the Internet.

Companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner say they need this option to help manage traffic flow. Critics counter that the approach would result in a two-tiered system that would benefit companies that can afford the fast lane, relegating others to a slower stream.

Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla., does not support Sensenbrenner's original bill, though he hasn't asked the chairman to modify it. "I really believe we ought to take a deregulatory, or hands-off approach, because I think the market will provide services to customers of the Internet that we can't even imagine," said Feeney, a member of the committee. "The more we try to regulate it, the more harm we'll do."

Sensenbrenner offered his bill last week after the House parliamentarian rebuffed his request for sequential referral of broader telecommunications legislation by Energy and Commerce Chairman Barton. That measure, widely viewed as favorable to the Bells, would grant the FCC authority to adjudicate disputes involving network neutrality and imposes fines of up to $500,000 per violation. It would not give the agency regulatory authority in this area.

The Bells are seeking to derail Sensenbrenner's legislation and have been scrutinizing it for flaws. One problem they flagged -- that it would unintentionally bar the use of parental control technology -- will be addressed by Sensenbrenner today in a manager's amendment.

And here's a release from Citizen Outreach's Chuck Muth

'NET REALITY
May 24, 2006

As savvy and well-informed News & Views readers know, "net neutrality" is a sweet-sounding term which in reality means future government regulation of the Internet. Fortunately, a net neutrality proposal was recently killed in the Energy and Commerce Committee; however, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner is now trying to resurrect it.

The Judiciary Committee scheduled a briefing for his committee today in which the "Net Neutrality Coalition" was invited to provide their insights.

Get a load of who makes up this coalition: MoveOn.org, Free Press, Nancy Pelosi, Ed Markey, REM, Moby, affiliates of the ACLU, Common Cause, Consumers Union, Feminist Majority, labor unions, US Pirg, Progressive Democrats of America and the virulently anti-Bush Public Campaign.

Now take a look at this list of groups who were NOT invited to participate in this briefing to discuss net neutrality before Sensenbrenner's committee:

Citizen Outreach
Americans For Tax Reform
American Conservative Union
National Taxpayers Union
Citizens Against Government Waste
Frontiers of Freedom
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Free Enterprise Fund
National Association of Manufacturers
Chamber of Commerce
Freedom Works
Discovery Institute
National Black Chamber of Commerce
Center For Individual Freedom
Telecommunications Industry Association
Media Freedom Project
The Institute for Liberty
The Heritage Foundation
Americans for Prosperity
Catholic Citizenship
Federalist Society

What's wrong with this picture? Why is the Republican chairman of a Republican-majority committee of the Republican-majority House of Representatives providing a forum on a public policy issue for the likes of MoveOn.org, the union bosses and the ACLU while excluding just about every conservative public policy organization under the sun?

Tomorrow, Sensenbrenner's committee will consider voting for a net neutrality bill. Those of you who want the government to keeps its hands off our Internet might want to call or email the Judiciary Committee and make your feelings known before it's too late.

The phone number to call the committee is (202) 225-3951. Or you can send an email to Chairman Sensenbrenner via committee staffer Rob Tracci at rob.tracci@mail.house.gov

As always, be firm but professional in your comments.

Chuck Muth
President
Citizen Outreach