Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunication and the Internet, today introduced H.R. 5353 (pdf), the Internet Freedom Preservation Act. The new bill rekindles the debate over network neutrality, but does not regulate network neutrality. The bill tasks the FCC with studying the issue further over the next year, and asks the agency to conduct at least eight "public broadband summits" where Internet users can voice their opinions. Markey says his goal is to prevent "unreasonable discriminatory favoritism" by providers.

"The global leadership in high technology the United States provides stems directly from historic policies that have ensured that telecommunications networks are open to all lawful uses and to all users," said Markey in a prepared statement. "In addition, because of the vital role that broadband networks and the Internet fulfill in exercising our First Amendment rights to speak, it is important that the United States adopt a policy endorsing the open nature of broadband networks."

SaveTheInternet.com, a coalition of consumer advocates, insists the bill is "a Blow to the Gatekeepers," saying the legislation "gives hope to the millions of Americans who have called for action to ensure that the public — not phone and cable companies — control the fate of the Internet." The Open Internet Coalition, a group comprised of companies such as Google, eBay and TiVO, also issued a statement lending their support to the bill.

"Over the last several months, we have seen repeated activities by the telephone and cable companies that threaten the existence of an open Internet," said the group. "Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast have all engaged in actions that collectively, if left unchecked, will hasten the end of the Internet as the greatest platform for openness and innovation in our nation’s history."

In contrast Scott Cleland, a paid public relations and policy representative for the telecom industry, called the Markey bill the "Net Neutrality Wolf in Broadband Sheep's Clothing Act." "They can try and mask the net neutrality wolf with Internet Freedom sheep's clothing, but I doubt people will be fooled," insists Cleland. "The costume doesn't mask the long teeth and the wolf's breath."

We asked AT&T for their opinion on Markey's new bill. While the bill's sponsors insist that the bill simply asks the FCC to study network neutrality, "it is far more than that," the company insists. "It would enact a new broadband policy for the United States that would include unprecedented regulation of the Internet," the company says. "As such, this bill will jeopardize billions in badly needed Internet investment and stifle broadband deployment."

The idea that network neutrality legislation will result in capacity armageddon has long been the argument of the incumbent operators (and that of their many varied PR extensions). Neutrality supporters in contrast argue that if something isn't done, the future consists of major corporations throttling, crushing and derailing any content that competes with their own content interests (which for a company like Comcast, are substantial).

Obviously the wild card in this new round of network neutrality fisticuffs is the Presidential election. A Presidential candidate such as Barak Obama, who supports network neutrality, could appoint a more progressive network neutrality advocate to lead the FCC, which would vastly change the agency's policy direction. The FCC's current policy direction, for those napping, is to essentially do what AT&T and Verizon tell them to do (nothing).

That's not to say the FCC doesn't enjoy putting on a show while it does nothing; the agency today announced (pdf) that they're holding a February 26 hearing at Harvard Law School to hear from a group of "expert panelists" on network management issues, though who those panelists are is not specified. The meeting is open to the public.