Four influential members of Congress, fed up with the Google/Verizon “industry-centered net neutrality policy framework,” are now demanding that the government act in the public interest to enforce real network neutrality.

More specifically, they want the FCC to act. Even though passing legislation through Congress would be cleaner and less legally fraught than implementing new rules at the FCC, current political realities make that impossible. It's up to the FCC to git-er-done.

Cable-izing the Internet

The new letter (PDF) comes from four members of the House Energy and Commerce committee, Ed Markey (D-MA), Mike Doyle (D-PA), Jay Inslee (D-WA), and Anna Eshoo (D-CA). None of them makes even a token positive reference to the Google/Verizon proposal, which would provide a few limited neutrality protections to wireline Internet service while creating huge exceptions (and leaving wireless service free to discriminate completely).

Google claims that its efforts at a deal were all done in good faith, with a desire for an open Internet, and to move a stalled process forward. These members of Congress aren't buying it.

Markey said, "No private interest should be permitted to carve up the Internet to suit its own purposes."

"In my Silicon Valley district there are people building the next generation of Internet breakthroughs," added Eshoo in a statement. "We cannot undermine their success by ‘cable-izing’ the Internet. That’s why my colleagues and I remain steadfast in our commitment to net neutrality. The reactions to the legislative proposal from Google and Verizon demonstrate that it is not nearly strong enough to meet this standard."

Inslee warned that "Americans' online experience shouldn't be dictated by corporate CEOs," while Doyle added that the Google/Verizon proposal could "have the effect of choking off much of the most important, creative, and valuable contributions the Internet can make to the idea-driven economy of the 21st century."

The letter itself rails against "a proposal by two large communications companies with a vested financial interest in the outcome" And finds four main reasons to fault the deal: It gives little oversight authority to the FCC, it allows for paid prioritization which “would close the open Internet,” it treats wireless services differently, and its broad support for managed services would “swallow open Internet rules.”

Instead, the letter demands “a common sense nondiscrimination requirement without loopholes." It wants the FCC to craft such requirements as part of its current “third way” attempt to implement neutrality rules in the wake of a major FCC court defeat earlier this year.

An FCC problem



The FCC may have hoped to punt such a controversial issue over to Congress, but Congress has been quite direct in saying that it has no plans to act. This has been clear for months—back in May, senior lawmakers Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) also demanded FCC action.

That's because the Democratic caucus is divided on the issue. Despite substantial support from Democrats (including President Obama), 73 Democrats expressed their opposition to network neutrality rules back in May. A Democratic legislative aide tells Ars that the votes simply aren't in place, that members will grow even more skittish about passing controversial legislation as the November elections approach, and that no bill stands a realistic chance of moving through Congress unless the major carriers support it. (Also, sadly, many members don't understand the issue.)

Given the possibility that Republicans could retake the House, it looks unlikely that Congress will take any action in support of neutrality for the next few years.

Over at the FCC, Genachowski has been slow to act, and has said little on the Google/Verizon proposal. But net neutrality rules are now quite clearly up to him.