Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Markey:

Strike section 201 of the bill and insert the following:

SECTION 201. NETWORK NEUTRALITY.

Critics of the bill include cities and other localities, which resent the loss of control over the franchising process, as well as "net neutrality" proponents, who argue that the measure does not go far enough to preserve consumers' ability to get whatever content they want over the Internet.

"Net neutrality" advocates believe that phone and cable companies should be barred from blocking, slowing down or otherwise discriminating against the Internet content that flows over their networks. They fear network owners will cut deals to give some content providers priority delivery, putting those who don't pay for this at a disadvantage.

Phone and cable companies say they will not block Web sites but should be allowed to manage their networks -- which handle an ever-increasing amount of traffic -- and to charge more to those who want guaranteed fast delivery.

The House rejected by a vote of 152 to 269 an amendment sponsored by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) that would have required phone and cable companies to run their networks in a "nondiscriminatory" manner.

Instead, lawmakers adopted a weaker provision that would seek full access to content for consumers but would not explicitly forbid network owners from giving some content favorable or unfavorable treatment. The provision also bars the FCC from writing detailed rules to enforce "net neutrality."

"The telephone companies have made clear that they can create a fast lane that will require extra payments and a slow lane for everyone else who can't afford it. That is a fundamental change in the history of the Internet, and it will adversely affect millions of Internet users across our country," Markey said in an interview before his amendment was voted down.

During the debate, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Commerce Committee, said the bill sought to "strike the right balance between ensuring that the public Internet remains an open, vibrant marketplace and ensuring that Congress does not hand the FCC a blank check to regulate Internet services.

"We don't need anybody to be the first secretary of the Internet," he added.

AOL had previously contracted with SurfControl to operate its parental controls. While RuleSpace's system will be mostly automated, SurfControl's SurfWatch -- like many filtering products -- relied on human editors to make the final call on which sites should get blocked.

Automated and manual types of analysis both have drawbacks. A team of editors can only review a tiny fraction of the seven million new websites added to the Web every day. But automated filters have become notorious among civil libertarians for "over-blocking" sites based on just one blacklisted keyword. For example, the ACLU likes to point out that conservative Congressman Dick Armey's website is blocked by a popular filter.

Monday, June 12, 2006; Page A20

THE SENATE will hold hearings tomorrow on "net neutrality," the idea that the pipes and wires that form the Internet should treat all content equally. An alliance whose membership ranges from the Christian Coalition to MoveOn.org is demanding that Congress write this neutrality into law; the groups fear that the pipe owners -- cable companies, phone companies and so on -- might otherwise deliver corporate content at high speed for high fees, while consigning political Web sites and hobbyists to a slow information byway. These arguments are amplified by the big Internet firms -- Google, Microsoft, eBay -- that want their services delivered fast but don't want the pipe owners to extract fees from them. Although this coalition lost a House vote last week, its prospects are stronger in the Senate. (The Washington Post Co. owns broadband networks that might charge Web sites for fast delivery. It also produces Web content that might be subject to such fees, so it has interests on both sides of this issue.)

[...]

More than 60 percent of Zip codes in the United States are served by four or more broadband providers that compete to give consumers what they want -- fast access to the full range of Web sites, including those of their kids' soccer league, their cousins' photos, MoveOn.org and the Christian Coalition. If one broadband provider slowed access to fringe bloggers, the blogosphere would rise up in protest -- and the provider would lose customers.