Based on this link . . .
. . . it would appear that we were successful in correcting the
language of the amendment that Snowe and Dorgan presented:
Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.)
proposed an amendment to the bill to "ensure fair treatment of
all Internet content." The amendment incorporated the following
non-discriminatory principle: "to promote broadband deployment,
and presence and promote the open and interconnected nature of
the Internet, a broadband service provider shall not discriminate
Internet traffic based on source, ownership, or destination of
such traffic as part of any publicly available Internet
offering." It was defeated in the Committee with a tie vote of
This language is much, much better than what they originally had.
When HR 5217 came out of the House Judiciary Committee, we
quickly put out word that all the existing NN proposals, both
House and Senate side, would actually end net neutrality if they
were passed (less conveniently for the broadband providers than
what they were saying they wanted to do, but just as certainly)
(HR5273[Markey], HR5417[Sensenbrenner], S2360[Wyden] and
They all basically came down to saying "applications, content and
services" were to be either treated equally or
non-discriminatorily -- meaning, break the separation of layers
by identifying applications that would be treated the same.
We recruited support for the legislative proposal at
http://www.dpsproject.com and blitzed people both in the movement
actively in motion and on the Hill with it, saying they would end
net neutrality, that this was the right definition, and using the
line: "Packets, not Applications, Content and Services."
During the markup for the Stevens Bill, Snowe and Dorgan withdrew
their original language and introduced a new amendment, the full
language of which I haven't yet found anywhere, but the language
quoted in the article above is indeed way better than what they
had in their original Bill.
Nothing about "applications, content or services." Just
"Internet traffic" and "source, ownership or destination of such
My remaining concern is whether "not discriminat[ing] Internet
traffic" on the given bases is clear enough.
The NN movement and its legislative sponsors now seem to be
talking the right language. We seem to have been quite
We still have to watch to see what language comes out as the
Steven Bill progresses. I still haven't seen the actual
amendment that was presented during the markup for the Stevens
Seth Johnson wrote: