• by Wendy Davis , Staff Writer @wendyndavis, July 6, 2006

Ted Stevens, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, recently made some dubious comments about the Internet and "Net neutrality" that have been circulating around the Web this week. And, while the comments are troubling, they also can potentially galvanize supporters of "Net neutrality."

Last week, the Commerce Committee approved an overhaul of telecom legislation to allow telecos to deliver video, but defeated a "Net neutrality" amendment that would have banned Internet service providers from discriminating against some Web publishers by, for instance, charging some popular sites like Google a premium for delivery, or by blocking certain sites altogether.

Stevens, a Republican from Alaska, is on record as opposing new laws enshrining neutrality. But he has said in the past that the Federal Communications Commission should be able to fine companies that violate neutrality principles. In fact, many of the voices opposed to passing Net neutrality laws have said that the laws are unnecessary because the FCC can enforce neutrality principles without new legislation. The House version of the telecom reform bill even has a provision authorizing the FCC to fine Internet service providers.

But Stevens's convoluted remarks last week clearly belie his stated commitment to the idea of neutrality. "I just the other day got--an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially," said the senator.

It's unclear why Stevens thinks that commercial traffic somehow held back his "Internet"--presumably an e-mail--but it's obvious that Stevens believes Internet service providers should be able to charge a premium to deliver some publishers' content; how else to explain his lament that commercial traffic somehow delayed delivery of his own e-mail.

The good news here for Net neutrality supporters is that they should be able to seize on his remarks to emphasize what neutrality really means--and the types of delays that surely occur without laws banning telecoms from slowing down service for companies like Google.