On Tuesday, Senator Al Franken and (D-Minn) and Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) introduced a bill, called the Internet Freedom, Broadband Promotion, and Consumer Protection Act of 2011. According to Senator Franken’s web site…

“Net neutrality is one of the most important issues facing our country today,” said Sen. Franken. “The recent FCC ruling on net neutrality does not do nearly enough to protect consumers, and this bill is designed to maintain a free and open Internet. This isn’t just about speech, it’s also about entrepreneurship and innovation, and it’s about our economy.”

According to the text of the bill draft, the goal is…

To preserve the free and open nature of the Internet, expand the benefits of broadband, and promote universally available and affordable broadband service.

The bill isn’t long, but here are some of the highlights (I’ve modified to ease readability) …

(12) The United States needs clear Federal policy that preserves the historically free and open nature of the Internet, expands the benefits of broadband, and promotes universally available and affordable broadband service that does not chill in novation or speech within the content, applications, and services available online.

(13) The Federal policy to ensure that the Internet remains free and open must apply equally to all broadband Internet access services, regardless of whether those services use wire, radio, or some combination of those means to reach the end user.

Here are some of the proposed dos

‘(2) Broadband Internet access service providers shall not require end users to purchase voice grade telephone service, commercial mobile radio voice services, or multichannel-video programming distribution services or other specialized services as a condition on the purchase of any broadband Internet access service.

(3) All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with broadband Internet access service shall be just and reasonable.

And some of the proposed don’ts

(1) block, interfere with, or degrade an end user’s ability to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer lawful content (including fair use), applications, or services of the user’s choice;

(2) block, interfere with, or degrade an end user’s ability to connect and use the end user’s choice of legal devices that do not harm the network;

(3) prevent or interfere with competition among network, applications, service or content providers;

(4) engage in discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, service, or service provider with respect to network management practices, network performance characteristics, or commercial terms and conditions;

(5) give preference to affiliated content, applications, or services with respect to network management practices, network performance characteristics, or commercial terms and conditions;

(6) charge a content, application, or service provider for access to the broadband Internet access service providers’ end users based on differing levels of quality of service or prioritized delivery of Internet protocol packets;

(7) prioritize among or between content, applications, and services, or among or between different types of content, applications, and services unless the end user requests to have such prioritization;

(8) install or utilize network features, functions, or capabilities that prevent or interfere with compliance with the requirements of this section; or

9) refuse to interconnect on just and reasonable terms and conditions.

And the network management

(4) LIMITATION.—A network management practice may not be considered to be a reasonable network management if the broadband Internet access service provider charges content, applications, or other online service providers for differing levels of quality of service or prioritized delivery of Internet Protocol packets.

Finally MISC

There’s a clause about making practices known and a section on exemptions.

There’s also a clause stipulating that anyone qualifying for USF will have to provide stand-alone internet services.

There are some teeth, which means anyone found guilty of not adhering to the law can be found liable for damages.

There is an effort to study the impact of the proposed law one year after enactment.