The war over network neutrality has been fought in the last two Congresses, and last week's introduction of the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009" (PDF) means that legislators will duke it out a third time. Should the bill pass, Internet service providers will not be able to "block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade" access to any lawful content from any lawful application or device.

ISPs would also be forbidden to "impose a charge" on content providers that goes "beyond the end-user charges associated with providing the service to such a provider." In other words, AT&T doesn't have to let Google "use its pipes for free," but it can only collect the money is owed through customary peering and transit arrangements.

The bill was introduced in the House by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA)—who introduced similar legislation during the last Congressional session. During the Congressional session before that, Markey pushed network neutrality as an amendment rather than a standalone bill. Neither method has yet been successful.

"The Internet has thrived and revolutionized business and the economy precisely because it started as an open technology," said co-sponsor Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) in a statement. "This bill will ensure that the non-discriminatory framework that allows the Internet to thrive and competition on the Web to flourish is preserved at a time when our economy needs it the most."

The bill goes out of its way to beat the "lack of competition" drum, noting that "the overwhelming majority of residential consumers subscribe to Internet access service from 1 of only 2 wireline providers: the cable operator or the telephone company." Given this limited choice, the bill warns that ISPs "have an economic interest to discriminate in favor of their own services, content, and applications and against other providers."

And thus... this bill, which defines US policy as anti-discrimination and pro-capacity upgrades, even for "applications and services that require substantial downstream and upstream bandwidth."

Rulemaking and enforcement of network neutrality would be given to the Federal Communications Commission, which would also be given the unenviable job of hashing out what constitutes "reasonable network management"—something explicitly allowed by the bill. Such management must be "narrowly tailored" and the techniques used must be "the least restrictive, least discriminatory, and least constricting of consumer choice available." Detailed rules are left to the FCC.

Neutrality would also not apply to the access and transfer of unlawful information, including "theft of content," so a mythical deep packet inspection device that could block illegal P2P transfers with 100 percent accuracy would still be allowed.

If enacted, the bill would allow any US Internet user to file a neutrality complaint with the FCC and receive a ruling within 90 days. If an ISP is found to be in violation, damages may have to be paid to "the complaining party," which sounds like an excellent way to deputize Internet users into probing their ISPs for discriminatory practices.

Markey's last two attempts at pushing network neutrality have faltered, but with a new president and new FCC chair in place—and both open to the concept—the idea's political fortunes may have shifted as well.

That's certainly the hope of Free Press, the media reform group that spearheaded the fight against Comcast's P2P throttling technique last year. "An army of lobbyists has been unleashed by the phone and cable companies to kill Net Neutrality so they can become the Internet’s gatekeepers," said Policy Director Ben Scott. "But the momentum is shifting in the public’s favor. President Obama has repeatedly called for Net Neutrality; we have a new pro-Net Neutrality chairman now heading the Federal Communications Commission; and popular support is growing every day."