The Internet Freedom Act of 1999 (H.R. 1686)
Section-by-Section Summary

Title I – Antitrust and Criminal Provisions

Section 101 would ensure competition among providers of high speed Internet service by requiring that incumbent local telephone companies provide conditioned unbundled local loops to competitors as provided under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 when economically reasonable and technically feasible. The Section provides that in any civil action based on a claim under the Sherman Act, evidence that an incumbent local telephone company that has market power in the broadband service provider market has willfully and knowingly failed to provide conditioned unbundled local loops when economically reasonable and technically feasible, or restrains unreasonably the ability of a carrier to compete in its provision of broadband services over a local loop, is sufficient to establish a presumption of a violation of the Sherman Act.

Section 102 would ensure that other broadband access transport providers, in addition to incumbent local phone companies, allow broadband Internet service providers to compete fairly over their facilities. The section provides that in any civil action based on a claim under the Sherman Act, evidence that a broadband access transport provider that has market power in the broadband service provider market has offered access to an Internet service provider on terms and conditions less favorable to another ISP, or restrains unreasonably the ability of a service provider from competing is sufficient to establish a presumption of a violation of the Sherman Act

Section 103 would give an ISP that has been unreasonably restricted in its ability to compete in the provision of its services by a broadband Internet access transport provider the ability to have their complaint heard in the courts by granting them a civil right of action. The section states that it shall be unlawful for a broadband Internet access transport provider to engage in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive trade practices, the purpose or effect of which is to discriminate in favor of a service provider associated with that access transport provider or restrain unreasonably the ability of a service provider not affiliated with a broadband Internet access transport provider to compete in its provision of Internet services.

Section 104 would amend 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (which addresses criminal fraud in connection with computers) in several respects to address fraudulent unsolicited electronic mail. It would add to the substantive conduct prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a) both the intentional and unauthorized sending of unsolicited E-mail that is known by the sender to contain information that falsely identifies the source or routing information of the E-mail, and the intentional sale or distribution of any computer program designed to conceal the source or routing information of such E-mail. It would subject those who commit such prohibited conduct to a criminal fine equal to $15,000 per violation or $10 per message per violation, whichever is greater, plus the actual monetary loss suffered by victims of the conduct. In addition, prohibited conduct that results in damage to a “protected computer” (as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2)) would be punishable by a fine under Title 18 or by imprisonment for up to one year.

Section 105 sets forth definitions for “Broadband,” “Broadband Access Transport Provider,” “Service Provider,” “Internet,” and “Broadband Service Provider Market.”

Title II – Additional Provisions

Section 201 would add to Title VII of the Communications Act of 1934 a new section – section 715 – that would provide local exchange carriers regulatory incentives to accelerate their deployment of broadband services.

Under the proposed new subsection 715(a), all local exchange carriers would be required, within 180 days, to submit to the state commission (as defined in section 3(41) of the Communications Act of 1934) in each state in which they do business a plan to provide broadband telecommunications service as soon as such service is economically reasonable and technically feasible. Upon certification of the plan by the state commission, the carrier shall be obligated by the terms of the plan, but shall otherwise be able to provide broadband telecommunications service free of federal and state price regulation. Further, once a local exchange carrier is served by a competing provider of broadband telecommunications service, or once a carrier makes broadband telecommunications service available to 70 percent of the access lines in an exchange, the carrier shall no longer be bound by the terms of its plan in that exchange.

Under proposed new subsection 715(b), an incumbent local exchange carrier’s provision of broadband local telecommunications services that are otherwise subject to federal price regulation would not be subject to the requirements of sections 251(c)(3) and 251(c)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934 in any state in which the carrier certifies to the state commission that, where technically feasible, it will provide conditioned local loops to other carriers within established time frames and at a reasonable price.

Section 202 would accelerate the deployment of Internet backbone by permitting all companies, including Bell operating companies, to provide interLATA data services by means of the Internet or any other network that employs Internet Protocol-based or other packet-switched technology. Section 202(a) would achieve this end by clarifying the definition of “interLATA service” in section 3(21) of the Communications Act of 1934 to exclude such data services from its scope. Section 202(b) would extend the interLATA prohibition applicable to Bell operating companies under section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934 to voice telecommunications services via the Internet or any other packet-switched network.

back