• by Wendy Davis , Staff Writer @wendyndavis, November 7, 2010

The prospects for new net neutrality regulations seem somewhat dim these days, given the Federal Communications Commission's failure to move forward with a plan to reclassify broadband access as a telecommunications service.

Nonetheless, neutrality advocates are continuing to push the FCC to forge ahead with new rules that would ban Internet service providers from degrading or prioritizing material. In new filings last week, a host of organizations including Free Press, Public Knowledge and others, reiterated their stance that ISPs shouldn't be allowed to allow publishers to pay extra for prioritized delivery of "specialized services."

The groups were responding to the FCC's call for comment on a recent proposal by Google and Verizon. Those companies are urging policymakers to generally ban wireline ISPs from discriminating against publishers, but with one key exception -- the companies would allow ISPs to create an Internet fast lane for specialized services. Google and Verizon say such services could include telemedicine, distance learning and entertainment.

But Free Press, Public Knowledge and other neutrality advocates say that this type of exception is so vague it could swallow the rule. "Many commenters demonstrate that an exemption for specialized services, if not properly contained, would undermine consumer choice, competition, and innovation on the open Internet," Free Press argues. "In the absence of a more developed and honest record identifying such services and discussing ways in which they can be offered without undermining other goals in this proceeding, the Commission should not confer any such form of exemption from open Internet rules."

A coalition of groups led by Public Knowledge adds: "To date no one has offered a clear and comprehensive definition of 'specialized services.' "

The umbrella organization Open Internet Coalition points out that some online services that are being held up as examples of specialized services -- like IPTV, Verizon's FiOS TV and AT&T's U-Verse -- wouldn't be subject to neutrality rules because they are already cable, subject to Title 6 of the Telecommunications Act.

Public Knowledge also spent time last week debunking a claim put forward by telecom consultant Scott Cleland -- and subsequently tweeted by Verizon -- that all 95 of the Democratic Congressional candidates who pledged support for net neutrality lost their election.

Public Knowledge points out that those candidates were all challengers, and in districts "far more 'red' than average."

"Guess how many actual members of Congress who signed a pro-net neutrality letter lost re-election? None," Public Knowledge writes. "In contrast, voters said goodbye to over 33% of the sitting Democratic members who told the FCC not to act. Here we have proof of...nothing."