After New York Governor Andrew Cuomo pledged to make passing a state-level net neutrality bill one of his top 2020 legislative priorities, a high-ranking state senator there introduced just such a bill this week. But the legislation appears to propose the exact opposite of what open internet rules are designed to protect.
According to an analysis by the digital civil liberties group the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the bill set forth by Senate Telecommunications Committee Chair Kevin Parker, a Brooklyn Democrat, would allow “paid prioritization,” the practice used by internet providers to slow down or block some data traffic, while giving a smooth ride to data from sites that pay to access the online “fast lane.”
Parker’s bill, SB 8020, would allow ISPs to engage in paid prioritization if they believe that it would benefit internet users. But EFF said that no such benefit could possibly exist.
“There is no scenario, ever, that would justify allowing an ISP that is already compensated from user subscription fees such as your monthly cable bill, to pad their profits by giving preferential treatment to whichever companies pay them the most,” wrote EFF Senior Legislative Counsel Ernesto Falcon, in a response to the text the bill, which was published on Thursday.
Falcon said that while it is unclear why Parker included the paid prioritization in his bill, the arguments in favor of the practice are based on “myths” propagated by ISPs—such as the false claim that creating an internet fast lane is required for remote surgery to be performed.
The foundation of net neutrality principles is that all internet data traffic must be treated equally by ISPs, giving the smallest, independent sites the same access to the digital “pipes” as major corporations.
“The biggest lie the ISPs tell state legislatures is that they do not make enough money to pay for delivering broadband and therefore must charge Internet companies new fees,” Falcon wrote. But the real cost to an ISP of delivering one hour of high-definition video, he said, is less than one penny, and that cost continues to drop.
“In other words, arguments in favor of additional fees are wholly unsupported by fact, and are merely the rent-seeking behavior of monopolists,” the EFF lawyer wrote.
EFF called on New York to support a “real” net neutrality bill “that protects consumers and promotes innovation,” instead of one that “protects the interests of powerful incumbents looking to pad their pockets.”
Photo By Pentagram / Wikimedia Commons Public Domain
