The Plan to Save Net Neutrality Has No Chance in Congress

A Democratic plan in Congress to save net neutrality is just that—a longshot plan that will foster goodwill among the authors' constituents—but unfortunately has next to no chance of passing.

Introduced today in the Senate by Patrick Leahy of Vermont and in the House of Representatives by Doris Matsui of California, the Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act would force the Federal Communications Commission to ban "paid prioritization" agreements between ISPs and content providers, putting an end to a telecom plan to create an "internet fast lane."

On its face, it's just the kind of legislation that the people who have come out in support of maintaining a free and open have been waiting for: a definitive, unqualified action by government to keep all network traffic classified in the same way.

But, taking even a cursory glance at what it would mean—regulation of big business interests that give an insane amount of money to lawmakers—makes it pretty clear that even relatively moderate Republicans are unlikely to get on board. There's simply no reason to think that the bill will pass both houses of Congress. In fact, it'd be a bit of shock if Matsui even manages to get the bill to the floor in the Republican-controlled House.

More likely, the bill exists as a measuring stick—if Leahy and Matsui can force the bill to come to a vote, Democrats will have many Republican lawmakers on the record as opposing net neutrality, which may be some good political capital if a "two-tiered internet" ends up being a disaster, as many suspect.

But, for now, opposing net neutrality isn't even seen as a politically dangerous position to take for conservative lawmakers. It may become one, for reasons well-outlined by Peter Weber at The Week, but it isn't now.

"[Republicans'] main complaint is that this is government interference in the free market," Weber wrote.

And in a narrow sense it is, as is all government regulation. But when the government steps in to make sure that private companies can't bilk consumers by exploiting their dominant slice of a market or through legalese, that tends to be pretty popular. Is anyone really upset that George W. Bush's FCC mandated that cellphone customers can bring their phone numbers with them when they switch carriers? The political problem for Republicans is that net neutrality doesn't feel like Big Government stepping in to run your business. It may tie the hands of a few companies, but it lets consumers use the internet on (mostly) their own terms."

In fact, many Republican lawmakers are already on the record as opposing FCC regulation that would keep net neutrality rules in tact. When the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that FCC net neutrality rules were a federal government overstep back in January, GOP lawmakers came out of the woodwork to support the decision, calling it a "victory for jobs and innovation."

“Just as before the commission adopted its net neutrality order, with today’s decision American consumers will continue to have access to the Internet and to the content of their choosing without the government playing the role of traffic cop,” Republican Reps. Fred Upton and Greg Walden said in a statement. Meanwhile, Marsha Blackburn called net neutrality rules "socialist regulations."

Last month, Reps. John Boehner, the recently-ousted House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers also opposed regulations that would preserve net neutrality. That's a list of lawmakers as powerful as you're going to find in the House, and none of them are going to go along with a Democratic plan that would thwart big telecom. In the Senate, John McCain has suggested that the government let telecom companies do what they want.

And really, that's all there is to it. If you favor preserving net neutrality, it's worth applauding what Leahy and Matsui have done here. It's better than sitting by the wayside and doing nothing. But, unfortunately, the bill is lip service, nothing more.