Serdar Yegulalp

The latest cyber security information sharing bill being considered in the Senate strikes many as overly broad and in need of revision.

In fact, say some it's worded vaguely enough that it could be used by Internet service providers to sidestep network neutrality provisions in the name of public safety.

The wording of the bill -- like with so many of its predecessors that went down to defeat -- is being carefully scrutinized for possible side effects, including being used as a backdoor way for ISPs to undermine net neutrality. For example, throttling Netflix could be classified as a countermeasure as long as a good excuse could be found.

A letter jointly authored by a number of civil liberties groups and sent to the bill's sponsors, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), outlines a number of ways the bill could be abused.

In addition to worries that the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) could lead to a militarization of the cyber security program, the letter also expresses concerns about how provisions in the bill "could be construed to modify or alter any Open Internet rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission. Net neutrality is a complex topic and policy on this matter should not be set by cyber security legislation."

[Commentary] The Washington Post reported that a new bill is about to be put before Congress that would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prohibit Internet "fast lane" schemes, where ISPs charge extra for faster access to premium content.

The possible long-term effects of such proposals are sparking fierce debate. Most argue there is an obvious need for some kind of government regulation -- but what kind? And how likely is it that this particular bill -- dubbed the "Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act," and sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy and Representative Doris Matsui -- can make a difference in the ongoing struggle between ISPs, customers, and government authorities over network neutrality?

Here's the five most crucial things you need to know about the bill right now.

1. The bill doesn't actually give the FCC any new powers
2. An outright ban on "pay-for-play" may be tough to draft, or enforce
3. The FCC won't be taking the "nuclear option" (reclassifying Internet service providers as common carriers) anytime soon -- if ever
4. Other bills are in the works that could gut the FCC's regulatory powers over broadband
5. Don't expect the bill to get very far to begin with

[Commentary] No, the Federal Communications Commission's newly proposed rules for network neutrality don't spell the end of the Internet as we know it. But some of the concern about the proposed rules are valid, in big part because the rules don't address certain issues.

Here are the four key takeaways you need to know:

1. Fast-lane charges stink, and the FCC knows it. On Feb 19, it released a statement saying it intended to revise the rules. Many of the changes involve issues of net neutrality that have come to the fore recently, such as state laws blocking the creation of municipal broadband or the arbitrary blocking of legal content.
2. The FCC is planning to do little about it in the short run. The FCC's open-ended, let's-see-what-happens approach means any regulation designed to protect consumers from arbitrarily tiered pricing will happen in the FCC's own sweet time.
3. The FCC may not do anything about back-end deals. When FCC officials were asked at a briefing whether deals like the Comcast/Netflix peering arrangement would come under scrutiny under the new rules, the short answer was no. The rules, in other words, are still focused on ISP-to-consumer connections, not arrangements between ISPs and content providers.
4. This potentially affects everyone.