"The Incredible Shrinking Media: Who has my Internet?" was the title of the Fall Conference 2006 (to be at Yale).  For one reason or another, it did not take place.  Was it lack of interewst in the "Net Neutrality" issue?  Or the conceit that a Democratic Congressional victory automatically meant no more threat to Net Neutrality?

M E D I A   I N   T H E    2 1 st   C E N T U R Y
"E-Democracy:  A 21st Century Citizen's Right to Know and Participate"
Fall Conference 2007 at the Capitol - for a summary report click here.  WATCH IT AGAIN HERE!

 Cable or DSL:
http://www.lwvweston.org/LWVCT12-1-07CableVersion.wmv

Dial Up:
http://www.lwvweston.org/LWVCT12-1-07ModemVersion.wmv


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2007
WWW.USDOJ.GOV

Statement from the Department of Justice (in part) below - press release in full here:  http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2007/September/07_at_682.html

"...The Department also noted that differentiating service levels and pricing is a common and often efficient way of allocating scarce resources and satisfying consumer demand. The U.S. Postal Service, for example, allows consumers to send packages with a variety of different delivery guarantees and speeds, from bulk mail to overnight delivery. These differentiated services respond to market demand and expand consumer choice.

'No one challenges the benefits to society of these differentiated products,' the Department stated in its filing. 'Whether or not the same type of differentiated products and services will develop on the Internet should be determined by market forces, not regulatory intervention.' Despite the FCC’s call for specific information on harmful broadband activities, the Department noted that comments filed in response to this Notice of Inquiry did not provide evidence that would suggest the existence of a widespread problem that needs to be addressed. In addition, there is no consensus on what 'net neutrality' means or what should be prohibited in the name of 'neutrality.'

'Even assuming that a potential danger exists, the ambiguity of what conduct needs to be prohibited raises a real possibility that regulation would prohibit some conduct that is beneficial, while failing to stop other conduct that may be harmful,' the Department stated.

'The FCC should be highly skeptical of calls to substitute special economic regulation of the Internet for free and open competition enforced by the antitrust laws,' the Department said in its filing. 'Marketplace restrictions proposed by some proponents of ‘net neutrality’ could in fact prevent, rather than promote, optimal investment and innovation in the Internet, with significant negative effects for the economy and consumers.'

While cautioning against premature regulation of the Internet, the Department noted its authority to enforce the antitrust laws. 'Anticompetitive conduct about which the proponents of regulation are concerned will remain subject to the antitrust laws and enforcement actions by government as well as private plaintiffs, and the Department will continue to monitor developments, taking enforcement action where appropriate to ensure a competitive broadband Internet access market,'
the Department stated.

A copy of the filing is available from the Department of Justice on the Antitrust Division’s web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr. Paper copies of the filing are also available from the Justice Department’s Antitrust Documents Group, which can be contacted by telephone at 202-514-2481, by fax at 202-514-3763, or by e-mail at atrdoc.grp@usdoj.gov."

'Net neutrality' would be Democrats' pet
By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer
October 23, 2006

WASHINGTON - A Democratic takeover on Capitol Hill would be good news to those who say the government should prohibit telecommunications giants from playing favorites with Internet content.

The idea, known as "network neutrality," is about preventing those who control traffic on the Internet from allowing well-heeled Web sites to in effect buy their way to the front of the line in a world where data flow can be as congested as Los Angeles traffic. Proponents say it should be a bipartisan issue.

But lobbyists for the big companies that control most of the Internet in the United States are worried that the Democrats might pick up the seats they need to take over one or both chambers of Congress.

The issue pits those companies — including AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp. — against a well-organized grass roots campaign that is joined by some of the nation's biggest Internet success stories, such as Google and eBay.

Net neutrality advocates say the "Internet's First Amendment" is at stake. They argue that if those who run the network are allowed to discriminate against Web traffic based on which sites pay them the most, it will strangle the Internet's freewheeling, democratic nature.

Those who provide Internet service call it a simple issue of economics. Since companies like Google are pumping more and more information through their networks, those who provide the data pipelines should be able to charge more to pay to upgrade transmission capacity, they say.

Last year, both the House and Senate worked on bills that would let telecommunications companies like AT&T and Verizon Communications Inc. get into the video delivery business and compete with cable companies, without having to obtain franchise licenses in thousands of individual communities.

House members, under intense lobbying from the former Bell companies, were able to pass the legislation while beating back attempts to attach strong network neutrality provisions.

In the Senate a much more ambitious bill has yet to make it to the floor, and while there is a chance it may see action during an expected lame-duck session in November, its prospects are dim.

At the same time, Verizon and AT&T have persuaded state legislatures to pass relief from franchise rules, making that part of the push for a federal law a much lower priority.

That means network neutrality proponents will have to find a different bill to attach language to, or continue efforts to get something passed independently.

In the House, if the Democrats prevail, neutrality advocates can expect a much warmer reception than when the Republicans were in control.

The current chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is Rep. Joe Barton, a Republican from AT&T's home state of Texas. Barton has consistently opposed network neutrality, as has Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., who chairs the Internet and Technology subcommittee.

By contrast, Rep. John Dingell, also of Michigan and who would assume the chairmanship if Democrats take over, has been sympathetic to network neutrality proponents. And Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who would take over the Internet and Technology subcommittee, wrote an unsuccessful network neutrality amendment in the House and has made the issue a top priority.

Dingell is also expected to live up to his reputation as a tough overseer of the agencies that answer to his committee, such as the Federal Communications Commission.

On the Senate side, while a Democratic takeover is less likely, a Democratic pickup of one or two seats may still be significant.

A network neutrality amendment sponsored by Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., tied by a vote of 11-11 among members of the Commerce, Science and Communication Committee.

Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, the ranking Democrat who would take over the committee if the Democrats win control, supports network neutrality, while current chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, blames the issue for sinking his broad telecommunications bill.

Regardless of the election's outcome, network neutrality legislation would still have to be signed by President Bush — something that both sides acknowledge is unlikely to happen.


This matter continues...see article from March 2007 here!

2005 Fall Conference - Civil Liberties:  Balancing Liberty and Security
Saturday, November 19, 2005, 9am-12noon
Old Judiciary Room, at the Capitol
Hartford, Connecticut
Was broadcast on Cablevision Channel 77 in South Western CT for three weeks...DVD to be available as well - for information about this new prospect, e-mail webmaster@lwvweston.org

NOTE:  Speakers were:

National Public Radio audiotaped this program for play around Thanksgiving...we understand the voice-only version played on their website November 23rd. The NPR reporter took still photos of the League event.  Go to LWVof Weston's "Patriot Act" page for NPR direct links.