At issue are the fees that Cablevision pays to Fox to provide its programs to the cable operator's subscribers in Connecticut, New Jersey and New York. Fox is demanding twice as much for its programming than what Cablevision currently pays, according to Cablevision. Fox pulled its programming from Cablevision's 3 million subscribers in the New York area on Friday after the two sides failed to reach agreement on a new retransmission agreement.

Copps, a Democrat, noted that the FCC's role in the dispute is limited by law to ensuring both sides are engaging in "good faith" negotiations. But he added that the commission may have a role to play in protecting consumers.

"I believe the commission should take a very serious look at whether 'good faith' negotiations are indeed occurring," Copps said. "What, indeed, does 'good faith' mean in the dog-eat-dog world of big media? If such talks are not taking place, we should move promptly to protect consumers."

Fox has tried to enlist the support of members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in urging the FCC not to intervene in the dispute. Cable companies, meanwhile, would like to see Congress overhaul the whole retransmission process. Senate Commerce Communications Subcommittee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., proposed draft legislation Tuesday that would allow the FCC to intervene more directly when retransmission talks break down.

Copps also linked the retransmission dispute to his call for network neutrality rules aimed at prohibiting broadband providers or others from discriminating against or blocking access to Internet content. He argued that Fox's decision to briefly block Cablevision Internet subscribers from reaching Fox Web sites highlights the importance of protecting the openness of the Internet.

"For a broadcaster to pull programming from the Internet for a cable company's subscribers, as apparently happened here, directly threatens the open Internet," Copps said. "This was yet another instance revealing how vulnerable the Internet is to discrimination and gate-keeper control absent clear rules of the road."

Fox did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The ACLU released a new report that argued for rules that would bar broadband providers from "discriminating against information by halting, slowing, or otherwise tampering with the transfer of any data (other than for legitimate network management purposes)." The group urged the FCC to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service so that it can implement net neutrality rules.

"Network neutrality is a consumer issue, but it is also one of the foremost free speech issues of our time," the ACLU report said. "Freedom of expression isn't worth much if the forums where people actually make use of it are not themselves free."

The FCC's authority over broadband, which the commission has treated as a lightly regulated information service, was put in doubt by an April federal appeals court decision. In the wake of that ruling, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed applying some aspects of title II, which applies to telecommunications services, of the telecommunications act to broadband.

Broadband providers and other critics of reclassifying broadband say it will stifle innovation and investment.

"The regulatory overreach being urged on the FCC by some is a major mistake that would adversely impact jobs and investment, and would likely be overturned in court," AT&T Senior Executive Vice President Jim Cicconi said in late September about the issue.

Key lawmakers called for federal intervention over the weekend after Fox News and Cablevision failed to resolve a fee dispute leaving millions of Cablevision subscribers without access to programming from Fox.

"Everyone who follows this market is disappointed but not surprised that Fox and Cablevision were unable to reach a deal," Senate Commerce Subcommittee Chairman, John Kerry, D-Mass., said on Saturday. "I think we need new rules of the road."

In a public statement, Kerry committed to introducing legislation that would give the FCC a formal role in arbitrating negotiations over carriage fees between broadcasters and content providers.

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., wrote to the FCC on Saturday urging the commission to take action so that these "negotiations can be concluded in an equitable and expeditious manner."

Fox News, owned by News Corp., pulled its signal from Cablevision's three million subscribers on Saturday after the parties failed to reach an agreement on a retransmission consent deal by midnight on Friday. According to Cablevision, Fox is demanding $150 million for permission to broadcast their channels, more than double what Cablevision paid under their previous deal for that programming. Fox has declined to comment on that figure.

As of Sunday afternoon, the two groups continue talking but have yet to reach an agreement. This is the sixth time in one year that fee disputes between broadcasters and cable/satellite providers ended in television blackouts.

In the meantime, Cablevision subscribers, located in New York and New Jersey, were unable to view high-profile Football matches on Sunday including the New York Giants versus the Detroit Lions.

"While federal law provides that the terms will be set by agreement between private companies, Fox and Cablevision share responsibility for protecting their audience's interests," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said early Saturday. "I expect both companies to live up to this responsibility."

Media reports of Fox blocking Cablevision subscribers from Internet content belonging to Fox, such as Hulu.com, has turned the dispute into a net neutrality issue.

"I am particularly concerned by reports that access to Internet-based video from fox is being blocked selectively for Cablevision broadband customers," Markey wrote in his letter to the FCC. Blocking legal content is "patently anti-consumer," Markey noted, and goes against the commission's Broadband Internet Policy Statement of 2005.

"This case shows the dangers of unchecked media consolidation and of a retransmission consent regime badly in need of reform," said Public Knowledge president Gigi Sohn. "Consumers should not have their access to Web content threatened because a giant media company has a dispute over cable programming carriage."

Fox did not respond to an immediate request for comment.

UPDATE 12:22 pm

Cablevision broadband subscribers are not currently blocked from Fox Internet content and Sunday talks did not produce any "material progress" but the two parties will continue to speak on Monday, a Fox spokesperson told TDD over email.

The spokesperson declined to comment on whether Fox would be willing to enter into arbitration but said that "Cablevision has been unwilling to serious negotiate," and "needs to stop hiding behind calls for government intervention."

Via the company website, Cablevision is waging a campaign to get Fox to accept binding arbitration and stop their "act of corporate greed."

To be clear, there is no enthusiasm for Internet regulation among the tea party and its key affiliates. However, their aversion to the Federal Communications Commission reclassifying broadband from an information service to a public utility is so strong that it leaves open the distinct possibility of tea party support for tailored regulation.

"I thought the [House network neutrality bill] was a good starting point for a legislative approach," said Phil Kerpen, vice president of policy at the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. "It was very encouraging to see Congress willing to act on this."

Americans for Prosperity works closely with tea party activists and considers itself a "key ally" of the movement.

Red State, a conservative blog that many tea partiers read, endorsed the House net neutrality bill. Red State tech blogger Neil Stevens wrote on Sept. 29 that "House Republicans need to get on board and support" Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman's legislation. That same day, Waxman's bill collapsed due to lack of GOP support. To read more, click here. (Subscription required)

Several groups filed comments this week with the FCC, which is seeking input on whether wireless broadband and specialized services should be exempted from proposed rules that would bar broadband providers from discriminating against Internet content. The deadline for initial comments was Tuesday and reply comments are due by Nov. 4.

Free Press, one of the most vocal advocates for net neutrality rules, voiced concern about exempting wireless and specialized services from open Internet rules.

"Specialized services, to the extent that they are not voice or video services already under the panoply of Title II and VI consumer protections, are at this stage merely a hypothetical, one that could be used as a loophole for carriers to evade open Internet protections," the group said in its comments with the FCC. When it comes to wireless services, Free Press said the FCC should not allow the Internet "to be broken up into an open wired network and a closed wireless network."

A coalition of public interest groups led by Media Access Project offered similar comments on whether to exempt wireless services, saying "whatever the distinctions between different networks and network architectures, it is imperative that the same principles and rules apply to wired and wireless networks alike."

When it comes to specialized services, the coalition urged caution, saying this category should not be used as way to avoid open Internet rules. The groups, which include the Benton Foundation, Center for Media Justice, Consumers Union, New America Foundation and Public Knowledge, said these services are still "undefined at present" and urged the FCC to initiate a separate proceeding to "consider the scope of the category at greater depth."

During a Capitol Hill forum sponsored by the Free State Foundation on the future of broadband regulation, key staffers from the House and Senate commerce committees discussed the recent breakdown in efforts to pass net neutrality legislation being led by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif. The legislation was aimed at addressing the stalemate over the issue of whether the FCC should reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service after its authority over broadband providers was put in doubt following an April federal appeals court ruling in a case involving broadband provider Comcast. Reclassification would allow the FCC to move forward on its net neutrality proceeding, aimed at barring broadband providers from discriminating against Internet content.

Waxman's legislative effort stalled late last month before Congress recessed after he said he was unable to persuade Republicans to sign on to a draft bill that had the support of large broadband providers, some Internet firms and some public interest groups. The draft bill would have applied nondiscrimination principles to wireline broadband but not to wireless and directed the FCC to deal with enforcement on a case-by-case basis, rather than through rulemaking.

Waxman "is open to revisiting [the issue] in the lame duck session," after the November midterm election, Tim Powderly, senior counsel on the Energy and Commerce Committee's Communications Subcommittee said. "He thinks that if Congress can't act, the FCC must go forward with what it's going to do on reclassification."

Neil Fried, senior counsel to the Energy and Commerce Committee's Republican staff, however, argued that the GOP did not sign on to the effort because "there wasn't sufficient time to get Republicans comfortable with the approach being taken." He said Communications Subcommittee ranking member Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., would have liked to have seen lawmakers attempt to resolve the issue much earlier than they did.

He said he believes Congress should now focus on telecom issues where there is more consensus, such as universal service reform and spectrum management, and put the issue of net neutrality aside.

"From my perspective, it's a matter of priorities," Fried said. "There is no great net neutrality problem that needs solving right now." He added that the FCC would create a problem if it moved ahead with reclassification, an effort that would likely spur litigation and a push for action on Capitol Hill.

David Quinalty, a Republican staffer on the Senate Commerce Communications Subcommittee, said he agrees that the FCC should not move forward with reclassification, but does believe the Comcast ruling did leave some open questions that Congress may need to resolve.

He added, however, that it's "not terribly helpful to have Congress having a gun pointed at its head to negotiate a delicate" issue, particularly given that a majority of members of Congress have said they are opposed to reclassifying broadband.

Powderly noted that the draft bill Waxman had been working on with Communications Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher, D-Va., was intended to be an "interim measure," which would expire in two years, and was aimed at ensuring that the commission "would be there to be the cop on the beat to address issues if they arise."

Daniel Sepulveda, senior adviser to Senate Commerce Communications Subcommittee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., rejected Fried's assertion that net neutrality should be set aside. "There are a whole bunch of issues at risk because of the Comcast decision," he said. "The idea that we can set those questions aside [isn't realistic]. ... We need to come to some decision on the proper regulatory authority for this sector."

"Reclassification is not much of a threat to prioritization," Hultquist said "the FCC has decades of precedence of tariffs that were deemed lawful for the provision of prioritization."

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski proposed placing broadband under Title II of the Communications Act, a more stringent regulatory regime, last spring when a court case cast doubt on the commission's authority over the Internet. Genachowski called his plan "the third way" saying he would exempt broadband from the more onerous provisions of Title II such as price controls.

Industry and many members of Congress oppose his plan while consumer advocates seeking to protect the openness of the Internet will settle for nothing less.

Hultquist's comment suggests that the FCC's third-way approach may not lend the commission the power to stop "paid prioritization", the most-feared practice by net neutrality advocates.

Paid prioritization, public interest groups say, will hurt average users by allowing corporate gatekeepers to pick winners and losers on the Internet. Internet service providers refute that claim arguing that providing businesses with premium service and individuals with quality connections is not a zero-sum game.

Hultquist's remarks came at a forum held by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation on the role of managed services on broadband networks. The AT&T executive also noted that Title II has "many warts" and that the net neutrality debate suffers from being hyper-political.

ITIF senior fellow Richard Bennett, who also spoke at the event, suggested that lawmakers need to develop a principle of non-discrimination that gives carriers the ability to prioritize content as needed for smooth performance.

Much of the rhetorical battle will come down to interpretation of the House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's statement conceding his inability to gain bipartisan support for the measure and thus, move forward.

In his release, Waxman noted that he would continue to push for a bill during a lame-duck session but also called on the FCC to move forward with reclassifying broadband under Title II of the Communications Act, a more stringent regulatory regime, if lawmakers' fail to take action.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed reclassification last spring after a court ruling cast doubt on the commission's authority over broadband. Despite Genachowski's word that broadband would be spared the more onerous provisions of Title II, such as price controls, industry and many members of Congress have come out in fierce opposition to his idea.

Groups in favor of giving the FCC greater regulatory authority over broadband are running with Waxman's statement as a mandate for the commission to reclassify while organizations on the other side of the issue say Congress must lead the way and a legislative compromise is still possible.

"We are in full agreement with Chairman Waxman that the FCC must act now to protect consumers by reinstating its authority over broadband," GiGi B. Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, said in a statement.

"While bipartisan efforts to set rules of the road were unsuccessful, the FCC still has the power to break the grid-lock on net neutrality," said Amalia Deloney, policy director at the Center for Media Justice. "We hope Waxman follows through on the words of his office, 'The bottom line is that we must protect the open Internet.'"

CMJ describes itself as a coalition of out-the-Beltway community organizations that fight for the rights for small businesses, minorities and low-income Americans.

Opponents of reclassification, meanwhile, have promoted the possibility of a legislative solution.

"This agreement [Waxman's bill] demonstrates that when all parties act in good faith, and resist extreme voices, it is indeed possible to find a reasonable middle ground on the net neutrality issue," Jim Cicconi, head of external and legislative affairs at AT&T, said. "We remain convinced that the proper course is for Congress to decide the scope of authority it wishes the FCC to have in this area."

The Internet Innovation Alliance echoed that sentiment.

"The Waxman bill shows that a compromise to create jobs, preserve investment and protect consumers is a realistic goal," IIA co-chairman David Sutphen said. "Forging ahead with Title II reclassification is an unnecessary answer to a complex debate that has been unfolding for months."

For the imminent future, all eyes will be on the FCC now to see whether the agency will act on broadband regulation.

According to Sascha Meinrath, director of the Open Technology Initiative at the New America Foundation, the FCC may not act unless the White House comes out with strong public support for it. "In many ways that becomes the linchpin," Meinrath said.

When asked if the administration will support reclassification in the wake of the House's failed efforts, the White House issued a statement, saying, "The leadership of Chairman Waxman in bringing a range of parties together in support of an agreement shows that it is possible to forge a productive path forward on this issue."

"The administration strongly wants to see this issue addressed effectively," the White House said while affirming President Obama's support for preserving an open Internet.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., made the comments following an announcement Wednesday by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., that efforts to move compromise legislation through the House had stalled after Republicans refused to sign onto the effort that would have barred the FCC from reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service under the title II of the Communications Act. A draft of the bill leaked earlier in the week also would have applied nondiscrimination principles to wireline broadband but not wireless and directed the FCC to deal with enforcement on a case-by-case basis, rather than through rulemaking.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed reclassification after the commission's authority over broadband was put in doubt in the wake of an April federal appeals court decision. Reclassifying broadband would allow the agency to move forward with its open Internet proceeding aimed at barring broadband providers from discriminating against Internet content. Dorgan along with other net neutrality proponents are calling on the FCC to move forward with Genachowski's reclassification proposal.

"While I appreciate all the work that has been done in the House on net neutrality, I continue to believe that the best way to preserve the free and open Internet is for the FCC to act now to reclassify broadband under Title II," Dorgan said in a statement. "All of us who believe in an Internet without gatekeepers or tollbooths should be calling on Chairman Genachowski to reclassify broadband in a manner that re-imposes the nondiscrimination rules on the large Internet providers."

"With great regret, I must report that Ranking Member [Joe Barton, R-Texas] has informed me that support for this legislation will not be forthcoming at this time," House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said. "This legislative initiative was predicated on going forward only if we had full bipartisan support in our Committee."

House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher, D-Va., echoed that sentiment.

"I am disappointed that we were unable to introduce the Open Internet Act of 2010 on a bipartisan basis," Boucher said. "The measure would have been a significant step forward for the Internet community."

Waxman's statement came shortly after Barton expressed opposition to the planned bill saying that among Republicans there is a "widespread view that there is not sufficient time" to ensure the measure "will keep the Internet open without chilling innovation and job creation."

Waxman's bill sought to codify some principles that would protect the openness of the Internet.

A draft bill leaked to the media on Monday revealed a framework that would apply nondiscrimination principles to wireline broadband but not wireless and direct the FCC to deal with enforcement on a case-by-case basis, rather than through rulemaking. Under the draft, the commission would be prohibited from reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service under title II of the Communications Act, which would apply a more stringent regulatory regime.

"It is not appropriate to give the FCC authority to regulate the Internet," Barton said. "If Congress wants to prevent the FCC from reclassifying internet service under Title II, it should go ahead and do so without qualification."

Industry considers regulation of broadband under Title II "the nuclear option" and many lawmakers oppose it.

Waxman, on other hand, said "the FCC should move forward under Title II" if members' efforts fail to find bipartisan consensus.

Both Waxman and Boucher made it clear they will continue to push this bill during a lame-duck session.

"I remain willing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact it into law later this year," Boucher said. "Cooler heads may prevail after the election," Waxman added.

But chances of the net neutrality legislation clearing Congress this year remain decidedly slim.

"I think it will be almost impossible to get anything done on that." Senate Commerce Chairman John (Jay) Rockefeller, D-W.Va., told Tech Daily Dose on Wednsday.

When asked if he is willing to shepherd a net neutrality bill through a lame duck Senate session, Senate Commerce Communications Subcommittee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., said "oh wow" and declined to comment further on the issue.

The consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge, a stakeholder engaged with the crafting of the bill, thanked Waxman for his efforts and urged the FCC to act.

"We can wait no longer," Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge, said in a statement. "We expect those members of Congress who argued that it was Congress' duty to set telecommunications policy to recognize the authority of the FCC in the absence of legislation."

The Consumer Federation of America put out statement lamenting inaction on Waxman's bill saying it "would have created an important safety net to prevent the broadband Internet access landscape from being Balkanized by anti-competitive pay walls and discriminatory technology barriers that block or degrade communications."

Without a bill, though, CFA also urged the FCC to act on regulating the Internet to protect public interest.

"I am 100 percent for net neutrality. I know [House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry] Waxman is fighting hard," he said following the Senate's weekly luncheons. "I think it will be almost impossible to get anything done on that."

Waxman, D-Calif., and Energy and Commerce Communications Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher, D-Va., have been working on legislation that could supplant a proposal by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to reclassify some aspects of broadband as a telecommunications service, a plan staunchly opposed by broadband providers.

A draft of the bill, obtained earlier this week by Tech Daily Dose, would apply nondiscrimination principles to wireline broadband but not wireless and direct the FCC to deal with enforcement on a case-by-case basis, rather than through rulemaking. The draft would bar the FCC from reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service.

With the prospects of Congress passing a measure slim at this point, Rockefeller added that the FCC might need to act on its own. He said he still favors Genachowski's reclassification proposal. Rockefeller said he has been talking with Genachowski but wouldn't say whether he has pressed him to move forward with reclassification.

Rockefeller added that despite concern from some public interest groups, he believes Genachowski is "solid on net neutrality."

When asked if he is willing to shepherd a net neutrality bill through a lame duck Senate session if the House manages to pass a bill, Senate Commerce Communications Subcommittee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., said "oh wow" and declined to comment further on the issue.

The continuing resolution at hand would fund the federal government through Dec. 3 at FY10 levels for most programs. It must clear Congress before Thursday, the end of the fiscal year.

Stearns, R-Fla., complimented the leaders of the net neutrality legislative effort, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Communications Subcommittee Chairman, Rick Boucher, D-Va., for potentially stopping the FCC from reclassifying broadband under title II of the Communications Act, a more stringent regulatory regime.

According to draft legislation leaked to the media, the bill would prohibit the FCC from enacting such a change in classification.

Instead, the commission will deal with enforcement on a case-by-case basis. Broadband providers who violate the law will face a maximum penalty of $2 million by the FCC, under the bill.

The absence of the rulemaking authority, along with other provisions of the bill, is consistent with information reported by Tech Daily Dose last week.

The bill is a last-minute effort by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman to shepherd net neutrality legislation through the lower chamber before recess. Waxman hopes to advance the measure through the Senate during the lame-duck session after the November elections, according to an industry source.

Under the proposed legislation, the FCC would be prohibited from reclassifying broadband under Title II of the Communications Act, a change FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has proposed in order to allow the government to impose rules designed to preserve the Internet's openness. Although he has sought to protect broadband from more onerous regulatory requirements under Title II, such as price regulation, the industry regards the reclassification approach as the "nuclear option."

To ensure net neutrality, the House bill would stipulate that wireline providers may not block lawful Internet traffic and or "unjustly or unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful traffic over a consumer's wireline broadband Internet access service."

Notably, the nondiscrimination language does not apply to wireless providers. The legislation would prohibit wireless providers from blocking lawful websites, but leaves open their ability to block applications and peer-to-peer activity.

The draft bill also sets a Dec. 31, 2011 deadline for the FCC to deliver to the House and Senate commerce committees a report regarding additional authority needed by the commission to implement its national broadband plan and ensure the further protection of consumers with respect to their Internet use.

The draft includes a sunset provision calling for the enacted measure to expire at the end of the 2012 calendar year.

All of the rules regarding Internet traffic are subject to "reasonable network management," the draft bill says.

"This bill represents a giant retreat by some of those who claim to support net neutrality and sends the wrong signal to the FCC who will ultimately deal with this issue," said a source familiar with the situation.

Instead of tackling the hotly debated matter of broadband regulation, the FCC will take up "Bill Shock," proposed rules requiring mobile carriers to better inform consumers so they aren't surprised by unexpected charges.

The lack of action on net neutrality is sure to frustrate public interest groups such as Free Press and Public Knowledge as well the progressive organizations MoveOn.org and DailyKos. These groups have been lobbying the FCC to follow through on the commission's proposal to reclassify broadband under a more stringent regulatory regime.

Backers of net neutrality want lawmakers and the FCC to prohibit broadband providers from discriminating against Internet content or applications.

"Despite having the votes on the FCC to pass strong net neutrality rules, [FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski] has avoided taking the necessary action to do so," Joan McArter of DailyKos wrote in an email. "There's no good excuse for his dithering." In partnership with CREDO, DailyKos is circulating a petition urging Genachowski to act.

The creation of a Mobility Fund to support current and next-generation mobile services and rules related to video navigation devices will also be addressed in the commission's October meeting.