Congress Leans Toward Telecoms on Internet Future

Internet neutrality is a passionate debate where, in the words of Russellville businessman Jim Wilkins, “everybody with a dog in the hunt is primarily being driven by the hound with a green back.”

And that makes the current discussion among lobbyists, lawmakers, big telecommunications and technology companies a confusing one.

Wilkins, president of AirSignal Inc., a wireless broadband provider, hates to see issues that could end up trickling down to his rural technology business being bought and sold on Capitol Hill by global giants like AT&T and Google.

“It’s an issue of dollars and cents and not an issue of fairness,” he said. “The actual issue of net neutrality is actually just a small cog in this discussion.”

The two sides of the convoluted debate boil down to this: Either you like the fact that the Internet has traditionally been a mostly unregulated and inexpensive tool or you foresee changes that must occur in the way the Internet is managed.

The term itself, “net neutrality,” requires some defining especially since those in favor of keeping the status quo are the ones having to write legislation to ensure it remains a “neutral” playground. Broadband providers however, would like to leave that bit out of the telecommunications bill that’s currently under consideration so changes can be made as freely as technology advances.

Telecoms and cable companies say the expensive broadband network they have been building out is in danger of clogging up with bigger clumps of information such as video and file-sharing applications. Since AT&T, Verizon and cable companies are the ones that built and have to maintain the broadband networks, they want the freedom to eventually recoup those costs by charging more from those users who use more bandwidth to transmit more information, who in return would be guaranteed faster service.

For instance, AT&T can’t currently bill Google extra for the additional space it uses on its network even though the world’s largest search engine might take up more bandwidth than other sites.

Without net neutrality language in the law, telecoms would be able to charge additional fees to create what has been described as a toll lane with a higher speed limit on the information superhighway. If AT&T and other Internet infrastructure providers prevail in shooting down net neutrality legislation, a tiered pricing system is likely to go into effect and the big users — think eBay and Amazon — will likely be paying more rent for guaranteed faster service.

But net neutrality language, if enacted, would prevent such a two-tiered system.

Both sides have tried to rally the public to their positions. The confusion surrounding the issue is mirrored by the heated debate among lawmakers and lobbyists in Washington, D.C.

In late June, net neutrality stalled with an 11-11 vote by the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee.

Most Democrats are in favor of net neutrality, while many Republicans could do without. Two of Arkansas’ Democratic congressmen, Vic Snyder and Mike Ross, voted in favor of a net neutrality amendment that ultimately failed in the House even though the broad telecom bill went on to pass. Reps. John Boozman, R-Ark., and Marion Berry, D-Ark., voted against it.

Both sides claim the 11-11 tie was a victory, with net neutrality proponents happy to have dragged more Democrats to their side to help push for more defined language if the bill forges ahead. Opponents of net neutrality claimed victory for striking down a straightforward amendment that would have specifically prevented telecoms and cable companies from giving faster service to Internet users based on financial arrangements.