AT&T made a pragmatic decision to embrace network neutrality this past week. The goal was to grease the skids for the company's proposed merger with BellSouth, of course, but the move could have broad ramifications in the industry. Why? Because the AT&T agreement is the first of its kind, and it has given network neutrality supporters designs on a larger prize—industry-wide legislation.
That much was apparent in the reaction to the merger. Savetheinternet.com, one of the most vocal groups lobbying for net neutrality, said that the decision "paves [the] path to Congress." Ben Scott, another neutrality supporter who directs Free Press, likewise believes that this is only the first step to the Rose Garden.
"The bottom line is whether this merger condition advances our cause in the marketplace and in Congress," he said in the wake of the announcement. "In the market, this condition will have the effect of disciplining bad behavior—certainly for AT&T, and likely for the industry as a whole."
The reasoning here is simple. Now that AT&T has agreed not to degrade or prioritize most of the IP traffic on its network (there is an exception for the company's own IPTV service, though this should not affect access to the public Internet), any other firm that tries to do so will immediately look like the bad guy. Customer backlash, so the thinking goes, is bound to ensue. In such a climate, AT&T's agreement may serve as a template for lawmakers to adopt sweeping legislation that will affect every company in the industry.
The campaign for net neutrality has gone far beyond a simple political debate: proponents speak in terms of "saving democracy" and other elevated language. Even FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein said in his signing statement that the network neutrality provisions "are critical to preserving the value of the Internet as a tool for economic opportunity, innovation, and so many forms of civic, democratic, and social participation." Given the public euphoria surrounding the agreement, can broader regulation be far behind?
Is that a raincloud hovering above the parade?
Very possibly. For one thing, a majority of FCC commissioners oppose network neutrality regulations, and if Commissioner McDowell had not recused himself from the proceedings, none would have been imposed. The two Republican commissioners who did vote, Kevin Martin and Deborah Taylor Tate, made emphatically clear that they disagreed with many of the conditions and singled out network neutrality for special criticism. No broad network neutrality regulations are likely to emerge from the FCC.
Thus the focus on Congress. But Congress is not a sure thing—last year's wrangling over a new telecommunications bill found members of both parties coming down on opposite sides of the issue. Prominent House Democrats like Ed Markey (D-MA) support network neutrality, but it is not yet clear that they can guide a bill through the House.
And if legislation emerges from Congress, it still needs the President's signature. Bush is unlikely to veto what would be a popular piece of legislation, but it remains a possibility.
Still, the move is clearly a good sign for backers of network neutrality. It gives them a measure of success, encouragement, and a rallying point around which to gather their membership for a push in Congress this year. Ultimately, the success of any network neutrality legislation will probably come down to the details of how it is written. Neutrality is a messy concept to define, and any over-broad legislation will probably die in committee.
But if neutrality backers push for modest legislation this year, they might well see success. Will such a law truly "save the Internet"? Stay tuned.
reader comments