Explaining the Ed Markey Strategy on Net Neutrality

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:57

Ok, so Democrat Ed Markey and Republican Chip Pickering just introduced a bill called the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008" which does a number of things to advance the notion of an open internet. Dana Blankenhorn at ZDNet sees the bill as weak tea, while Harold Feld has a more nuanced take. The bill does two things. It makes explicit that Federal policy is to keep the internet open, and it mandates that the FCC go out and hold hearings outside of DC on whether Federal policy is preserving the openness of the internet, followed by a report.

It has limited to no enforcement provisions, and it doesn't really have a lot of teeth. It's nowhere near as strong as Markey's amendment last cycle, or the Snowe-Dorgan bill introduced earlier this year in the Senate. So why is the SavetheInternet coalition excited, and why is telecom shill Scott Cleland in a lather, calling this a wolf in sheep's clothing?

The answer is that this is not about passing a law in Congress, but about establishing net neutrality, broadband deployment, and an open internet as priorities for the next administration. It's a setup for ambitious and progressive agenda at the FCC starting in 2009, one Obama has already outlined. The FCC is a regulatory agency with a fair amount of discretion, but it is responsive to Congressional hearings and possible legislation. When members sign on to a bill like this, or fight it, it has an impact on the range of options available to commissioners.

On a Congressional level, there is no reason at all to oppose this bill, as it simply says that a free and open internet is good, and that the FCC should hold public hearings and write a report to Congress. Who could oppose that? After all, both sides have the ability to organize the public on their behalf, it's a level playing field. All the bill is saying is that the FCC needs to listen more and that an open internet is good.

In other words, if you oppose this bill, as many members probably will, you are in the pocket of the telecom and cable industry and want to keep policy-making hidden. That could cost members at the polls; it certainly didn't help Al Wynn. Internal polling for Donna showed early on that the public, probably because most people have cell phone nowadays, are actually beginning to see excessive corporate power in the telecom industry as a voting issue. I was surprised by this, pleasantly so.

Anyway, this bill is an organizing vehicle for us to give the next FCC the political capital to move on a good number of important open media and open internet issues by helping the public ratify a different agenda through hearings and an official open internet Federal policy statement.

Matt Stoller :: Explaining the Ed Markey Strategy on Net Neutrality

Tags: net neutrality, Democrats, Ed Markey, Donna Edwards, Al Wynn, MD-04, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Explaining the Ed Markey Strategy on Net Neutrality | 2 comments

Internet policy "field position" (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for posting on this subject Matt. I basically agree with your and Harold F's take on this, including Harold's "first down" metaphor.

In fact, I'd prefer us to get "better field position" before pushing hard on any specific "enforcement" legislation.

I believe "Internet Freedom" is an important issue we can win over the long term if we have a Dem in the White House and stronger majorities in both houses of Congress. At the same time, we're dealing with a technically complex and dynamic reality, and very savvy opponents who, due to their entrenched market and political power, have key advantages with regard to the drafting and enforcement of any telecom-related legislation. The fact that any legislation must contend with the existing rat's nest of legacy telecom regulation only makes the risks of failed legislation greater.

Given this and the fact that this is more of a long-term than short term policy issue--and one where "the people" are on our side--it makes sense to clarify what the goals and basic issues are, to gain a few crucial first downs in term of existing legislative language, and to promote transparency and citizen input (and activism) with regard to clarifying "market" reality and public attitudes and needs. This bill seems to do all of that.

As your post indicates, there's a big role for the netroots in this long-term campaign to achieve the Act's goal of "broadband policies that will promote openness, competition, innovation and affordable ubiquitous broadband for all individuals in the United States."

And, as you suggest, the Act is "a setup for ambitious and progressive agenda at the FCC starting in 2009, one that Obama has already outlined."

During the Clinton years, Reed Hundt's efforts to move in progressive directions were often hobbled by a Republican House and the Commission's influential ex-broadcaster and nominal third Democrat, James Quello. And those efforts were made at a time when the Internet was still in its infancy, the netroots did not exist, and the transition from legacy regulation was a nightmare of complexity, industry horse-trading and lawsuits waiting to happen (and they did).

Today we face a very different playing field. Thanks in large part to the Internet's fundamental resilience, we've made it through the first half without being knocked out of the game, and there's still plenty of time left on the clock. We've already got two good Democratic Commissioners at the FCC and will hopefully have a third Dem being appointed next year. Who that person is (and who becomes the new chair) should be something the netroots weigh in on. The same is true of "transparency" and "accountability" issues related to the FCC and other federal agencies.

by: mitchipd @ Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 14:04:31 PM CST