Interesting. This bill could easily be used to America's advantage.
The whole concept of "principle of sending party network pays" doesn't help the service providers charge, say, Google. The internet works based on a request, response scheme, just as this "principle of sending party network pays" implies. However, the policy makers in the article seem to have things backwards. They assume and imply that the service providers, Google, Netflix, etc... are the sending party.
The initial request, or call, comes from the users browser. Once the connection, or call, is established, data flows both ways. (Really it only flows to the browser on a per browser request, but that is subject to change with tcp sockets, which is open bidirectional communications initiated by who? the user's browser.)
This means that any data going to, say England from, for example, Google servers in Douglasville, GA, are all initiated from England. This means anytime anyone from England wants to use Google, the English service providers have to pay American service providers.
The article makes it sound the other way around, but the technology works, and has always worked, from a browser to server back to browser approach. Even your phone applications work this way. You have to send a message to the server asking them to send you information.
Am I totally mistaken? I have to be. How can this go all the way to international negotiations based on such a flawed assumption?