A Senate bill called the "Consumer Choice in Online Video Act" takes aim at many of the tactics Internet service providers (ISPs) can use to overcharge customers and degrade the quality of rival online video services.

Submitted yesterday by US Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), the 63-page bill (PDF) provides a comprehensive look at the potential ways in which ISPs can limit consumer choice, and it boosts the Federal Communications Commission's power to prevent bad outcomes. Let's take a look at a few of the areas the bill targets.

Online video degradation

"It shall be unlawful for a designated Internet service provider to engage in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the purpose or effect of which are to hinder significantly or to prevent an online video distributor from providing video programming to a consumer," the bill states. A little more specifically, it would be illegal to "block, degrade, or otherwise impair any content provided by an online video distributor" or "provide benefits in the transmission of the video content of any company affiliated with the Internet service provider through specialized services or other means."

Those provisions overlap a bit with the FCC's authority under its own net neutrality law, the Open Internet Order, which already prevents the blockage of websites and services. However, Verizon is in court attempting to kill that law, and there is a real possibility that it could be limited in some way. The Consumer Choice in Online Video Act could provide a hedge against that possible outcome.

The bill also says that usage-based billing systems (commonly known as data caps) may not be used "in a way that deters competition from unaffiliated online video distributors that may be in competition with the Internet service provider’s or its affiliate’s services."

Moreover, the bill seeks to prevent financial disputes from harming consumers. "No video programming vendor that has made available its video programming to consumers online may restrict access to that online video programming for a subscriber of a multichannel video programming distributor or its affiliate, or an online video distributor or its affiliate, during the time that vendor is involved in a dispute with such distributor," the bill states.

Broadcast TV licensees and TV networks would be required to negotiate with online video distributors to carry their content and would not be allowed "to place any restriction on an online video distributor’s ability to make the broadcast television licensee’s or the television network’s content, as applicable, available on any platform or device that is capable of delivering the online video distributor’s content to its subscribers."

Rockefeller also wants the FCC to take a closer look at how disputes over peering agreements can harm the quality of sites like YouTube and Netflix. As we wrote about in " Why YouTube buffers: The secret deals that make—and break—online video ," ISPs and video service providers often argue over peering agreements that allow traffic to pass from one provider to another. Refusal to upgrade peering infrastructure can harm the quality of online video. Yet the FCC's Open Internet Order specifically exempts peering agreements from its purview.

Rockefeller wouldn't change that immediately, but his bill would order the FCC to "study (1) the status of peering, transit, and interconnection agreements related to the transport and delivery of content over the Internet and other IP-based transmission paths; and (2) what impact the agreements … or disputes about the agreements … have on consumers and competition with respect to online video." Unfortunately, the FCC would be given a whopping three years in which to complete the study, delaying any positive outcomes it might lead to.

Usage-based billing must be accurate

With ISPs like Comcast enforcing data caps and charging extra to consumers who exceed them, Rockefeller wants to make sure the systems used to calculate overages are at least accurate.

ISPs would not be allowed to use data usage monitoring systems in a usage-based billing system unless the system is certified by the FCC. Additionally, each "Internet service provider that uses usage-based billing shall establish an appeals procedure for a consumer to obtain more detailed information about the consumer’s Internet data usage and to challenge the Internet service provider’s determination of that consumer’s data usage," the bill states.

No more bill shock

ISPs would also have to be more honest with consumers about what their Internet service will cost. ISPs would have to tell consumers before they purchase services what the actual monthly charge will be, "including all fees and costs associated with the Internet service."

If the consumer is getting promotional pricing, "a projected monthly bill for service once that promotional pricing period has ended" will be required, along with information about procedures to cancel the service and disclosures about any usage-based billing clauses.

Antenna rental and online cable systems

Consumers who want only basic broadcast channels would benefit, too, from a clause that says, "an entity may rent to a consumer access to an individual antenna to view over-the-air broadcast television signals transmitted from that antenna—directly to the consumer over the Internet or another IP-based transmission path; or to an individual data storage system, including an online remote data storage system, for recording and then made accessible to that consumer through the Internet or another IP-based transmission path."

The antenna rental service would be exempt from paying retransmission consent fees to broadcast TV stations.

The Rockefeller bill also encourages "non-facilities based multichannel video programming distributors," basically online video providers that would resemble a cable system but would be available over the Internet. Competitors would not be allowed to retaliate against any video programming vendor that makes its content available to online video providers. Retaliation against the online video providers themselves would also be prohibited.

A comprehensive bill, but no guarantee of passage

Chances of passing Rockefeller's bill in its current form may be low. Attempts by US Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to require or at least encourage cable and satellite providers to unbundle channels have been unsuccessful thus far.

Still, the Consumer Choice in Online Video Act was greeted enthusiastically by Senior Staff Attorney John Bergmayer of consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge.

"What I like about the bill overall is that it addresses both access to content issues and access to the pipe issues," Bergmayer told Ars. "It gets rid of some of the artificial distinctions in the law that exist today, where cable companies can't act anti-competitively toward other cable companies (such as lock them out of programming) but are free to do those sorts of actions against online video providers. It also provides a path for an online video provider to become a 'virtual MVPD' [multichannel video programming distributor]—an online cable system, basically. On the access to content side, it basically tries to make it so that online video providers can access content on the same terms as incumbents."