Net Neutrality Debate Comes to Michigan?

According to a recent Gongwer article (via Michigan Technology News), Google is looking to add provisions for net neutrality to a bill in the MI House.

Google Senior Counsel Michael Yang in a release to the media said that customers should benefit from competition "between all forms of video services, not just those offered by cable and telephone companies. What we're asking for is very simple: protect the consumer by making sure telephone and cable companies don't restrict the services that are available."

Google was already a prominent supporter of net neutrality, but has even more of a stake in it now that it owns YouTube. On the other hand, the telecom industry is an influential presence in Lansing and would almost certainly not support net neutrality. This is because they can charge content providers more money without net neutrality, and may potentially see services like YouTube as a threat. Up until now, Google would probably not have made progress on this issue. Given that the State House is now Democratic (and we still have a Dem governor), Google's side is more likely to be considered. Still, any new legislation on net neutrality would have to make it through the Republican-controlled Senate, where they barely hold a majority.

At the very least, Google's case for net neutrality will be heard by the Granholm administration, possibly because of the critical role that Google played in Governor Granholm's re-election campaign. The Google announcement to open a branch in Ann Arbor was an optimistic moment in what was an otherwise depressing set of circumstances. It provided evidence that the Governor's Jobs Plan was starting to work, and it was great evidence to counter the claim that Granholm's administration was somehow responsible for talented young people leaving the state.

As you all know, I strongly support the principle of net neutrality (which shouldn't be a surprise, given that I'm a blogger). Here's what I had to say about the issue way back in one of my first posts:

many people don't mention (or realize) that the reason why the telcos are in their position is because of regulation establishing their status as a "common carrier." This basically means that they are subject to different laws and regulatory models -- for example, they aren't liable for the nature of the content that is being transmitted. This is why its hypocritical for them to talk about leaving everything to free market system -- they are benefiting from entitlements that other content providers don't get! If they can trample on net neutrality they shouldn't be able to keep their status as a common carrier either, because in a true "free market" system they wouldn't be able to have it both ways.

According to the article, the legislation would likely not be debated over during this "lame duck" session. It is unclear if they'll try to amend HB 6456 or if a new bill will be introduced next session. This appears to be part of an effort to bring net neutrality as an issue to the state level.

[Rep. Mike Nofs] suggested Google's concerns could be dealt with in a new bill next term, adding that it appears companies like Google are seeing net neutrality, debated in Congress for over a year, is not likely to come to fruition this term and are now approaching the issue state-by-state as legislatures make changes to their telecommunication laws.

Look for more posts on net neutrality in Michigan as it begins to be considered.