• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, June 12, 2006

After losing a battle last week to persuade the House to pass a "net neutrality" law that would prohibit Internet service providers from either charging some publishers a fee for premium service or blocking access to certain domains, supporters of net neutrality said they intended to fight for such provisions in the Senate.

Late last week, the House voted 321-101 to pass the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act, a major telecom overhaul sponsored by Congressman Joe Barton (Rep., Texas) that will allow telecoms to compete with cable companies by offering video. An amendment by Edward Markey (Dem., Mass.) to require Internet service providers to act neutrally toward publishers--that is, not charge tiered fees or block access--was shot down 269-152.

But the Barton bill carries some support for net neutrality; it gives the Federal Communications Commission authority to enforce net neutrality principles and to fine companies up to $500,000 for offenses.

The chances that the Senate will approve the sweeping telecom overhaul are "uncertain," according to The New York Times. Regardless, organizations that are fighting to see net neutrality enshrined in legislation said last week that they intended to now take their campaign to the Senate.

A spokesman for net neutrality advocate SavetheInternet.com told the Los Angeles Times that it would continue fighting for such statutes. "Momentum to defend net neutrality will only grow as Americans realize that the threat to Internet freedom is real," the spokesman told the newspaper.

The consumer interest group Public Knowledge also told the media that it was disappointed but not surprised with the vote in Congress, and hoped the Senate would pass a stronger net neutrality law.

Telecom executives have argued that net neutrality principles are unfair because some Internet companies--like the heavily trafficked Google--end up taking up far more bandwidth than other, smaller companies. But Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and other Internet companies argue that consumers already pay access fees and that Internet service providers shouldn't be allowed to charge some publishers more based on consumers' heavy usage.

In Congress, those who are opposed to passing net neutrality protections say such laws are an unnecessary layer of regulation. Those in favor say the laws are needed to prevent companies from blocking consumers' access to political groups (which might not be able to afford to pay fees based on traffic) and competitors of the service providers.