Largely due to the continued dumb statements and actions of a few apparently PR-challenged carriers, the network neutrality issue is alive and well in the United States. Since any issue like this seems to create a legislative void that must be filled, we now have at least two network neutrality related bills for Congress to consider. If one liked legislation-based solutions, merging these bills and tossing out a bit of Federal Communications Commission make-work would not be too bad, but there would still be some questions left unanswered.

Historically, it has been uncommon that legislation resulted in just what the supporters professed to intend. Even under ideal situations, legislation is a far from ideal tool to ensure reasonable behavior in the real world. Furthermore, it is unlikely that discussion about any legislation affecting companies that spend as much on lobbyists as the telcos and cable companies do will result in an ideal situation.

Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) introduced the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 on May 8. This bill joined the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008, which was introduced by Representatives Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Chip Pickering (R-Miss.) on Feb. 12, in attempting to deal with the network neutrality issue made so prominent by carrier actions. 

It is likely that legislation (or regulations) about network neutrality would not be needed if there were real competition in the U.S. broadband business (See "The elusive third wire for Internet service.")

Regulations requiring full and easy-to-understand disclosure of ISP service offerings and prices is likely necessary in any case, but in an ideal world there would be no need to tell a carrier to treat its customers fairly. In this world we may get legislation, so we might as well look at the proposals on the table.

The Conyers/Lofgren bill is recycled from 2006, when it did not make a lot of progress. It would expand the Clayton Antitrust Act to outlaw some types of discrimination by broadband ISPs. It basically requires that ISPs not treat data from different service providers or customers in different ways. An ISP could provide better quality for VoIP service but would have to for all VoIP service, not just the service it sells. It is possible to read the current text to require that ISPs let their customers run servers, such as Web servers, which many do not currently permit.

Whitepapers

• Symantec State of the Data Center Report
• Gene Kim's Practical Steps to Mitigate Virtualization Security Risks
• Monitoring and Managing App Performance
• Monitoring and Managing VoIP
• SNMP Monitoring: One Critical Component to Network Management
• SNMP Monitoring: One Critical Component to Network Management

View more DATA CENTER whitepapers

Webcasts

• Managing the End User Experience-A Real World Example of Success
• Best Practices for Deploying WAN Optimization for Disaster Recovery
• Tips and Techniques for Remote Data Backup and Delivery
• WAN Optimization Landscape
• Oracle Database 11g: Advances in Compression, Real Application Testing and Data Guard
• Solutions to the Toughest IT Challenges in Remote Offices

View more DATA CENTER webcasts

Special Reports

• Data Centers: At the center of the action
• Executive Guide: Data Center Decisions
• Get More From Your WAN
• Executive Guide: Storage Heats Up
• Network World Executive Guide: Perfecting Application Performance Management

View more DATA CENTER special reports