If they wanted service from another ISP, they would either not be able to receive it or would essentially have to pay twice. This ability to leverage its monopoly vertically can curtail competition and innovation in the content market and raise prices for such information or programs. It could also limit the variety and availability of content that has made the Internet so successful. The bill gives a right of action to ISPs who have been restricted by broadband transport providers in their ability to compete fairly against other ISPs. For example, if a company limits the ability of an ISP to offer its services over their facilities on the same terms and conditions that the company offers to another ISP, the first ISP would be able to seek relief in the courts.
Competition is preserved among ISPs by using existing antitrust law.
Under this section, evidence in a civil action that a broadband access transport provider with market power has limited the ability of an Internet service provider to compete in the ISP marketplace would be presumed to have violated the Sherman Act. Finally, the Internet Freedom Act encourages open consumer access for consumers by making the Internet a more user-friendly environment. 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.