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.