Sign up e-newsletter Graphic

Contact Brad Graphic

Thomas Search

Print

Net Neutrality

Recent changes in federal regulation and court decisions have altered the legal protections against discrimination in access to the internet. As a result, some internet service providers now see the potential to profit by providing favored treatment to some internet content providers, the same way retailers charge manufacturers for prominent product displays in their stores. Such discrimination among internet content providers would forever change the open, vibrant competition based now on the appeal of internet content and would deny consumers the right to choose internet content freely. 

In the 109th Congress, the House considered the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enforcement ("COPE") Act. Two amendments specifically presented the issue of net neutrality. One clarified that antitrust laws applied to internet service providers, which would provide modest protection against discrimination among internet content providers. I voted for that amendment, which passed by a vote of 353 to 68. Congressman Ed Markey offered a more ambitious amendment that would have specifically required net neutrality by internet service providers, reinstating the previous regulatory protection to content providers and consumers. I voted for that amendment also, but the amendment failed by a vote of 152 to 269. Finally, I voted against the COPE Act for a variety of reasons, but prominent among those reasons was the failure to include provisions to protect net neutrality. House in the 109th Congress and was sent to the Senate where there has been no further action.  

In the current Congress, the House Energy and Commerce Telecommunications Subcommittee has listed net neutrality as one of its topics to be considered. In addition, a bill has been introduced in the House, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, which would establish certain requirements for broadband service providers regarding net neutrality duties.