^{Democracy & Technology Blog} Christian Coalition: What’s their beef?

Roberta Combs, president of the Christain Coalition, wonders:

What if a cable company with a pro-choice Board of Directors decides that it doesn’t like a pro-life organization using its high-speed network to encourage pro-life activities? Under the new rules, they could slow down the pro-life web site (emphasis added), harming their ability to communicate with other pro-lifers – and it would be legal.

The legislative proposals that were passed by the House of Representatives and especially by the Senate Commerce Committee fully address the concerns of the Christian Coalition. The group should declare victory and go home.
Specifically, the Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunity Reform Act, approved by the Senate Commerce Committee on June 28th, includes a provision which would indisputably make it illegal for a carrier to slow down access to a pro-life web site:

"SEC. 904. APPLICATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

     Consistent with the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution--

     "(1) no Federal, State, or local government may limit,
restrict, ban, prohibit, or otherwise regulate content
on the Internet because of the religious views,
political views, or any other views expressed in such
content unless specifically authorized by law; and

     "(2) no Internet service provider engaged in interstate
commerce may limit, restrict, ban, prohibit, or otherwise
regulate content on the Internet because of the religious
views, political views, or any other views expressed in
such content unless specifically authorized by law." 

(emphasis added)

Besides making it illegal for a carrier to slow down a pro-life web site, the bill also specifically outlaws blocking access to lawful Internet content for any other reason:

"SEC. 903. CONSUMER INTERNET BILL OF RIGHTS.

     "(a) IN GENERAL.--Except as otherwise provided in this
title, with respect to Internet services, each Internet service
provider shall allow each subscriber to--

     "(1) access and post any lawful content of that
subscriber's choosing; 

     "(2) access any web page of that subscriber's
choosing; 

     "(3) access and run any voice application, software,
or service of that subscriber's choosing;

     "(4) access and run any video application, software,
or service of that subscriber's choosing;

     "(5) access and run any email application, software,
or service of that subscriber's choosing;

     "(6) access and run any search engine of that
subscriber's choosing; 

     "(7) access and run any other application, software,
or service of that subscriber's choosing;

     "(8) connect any legal device of that subscriber's
choosing to the Internet access equipment of that subscriber,
if such device does not harm the network of the Internet
service provider; and 

     "(9) receive clear and conspicuous information, in
plain language, about the estimated speeds, capabilities,
limitations, and pricing of any Internet service offered to
the public."

I have criticized most of the net neutrality mandates as unnecessary or overly broad elsewhere on this blog. These particular provisions are unnecessary, but they clearly address the Christian Coalition’s stated concerns without tending to chill investment in a faster and more reliable Internet.